Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

DEATH OF HIS MAJESTY THE KING OF THE BELGIANS.

Sir VICTOR WARRENDER (Vice-Chamberlain of the Household): reported His Majesty's Answer to the Address, as followeth:
I thank you for your loyal and dutiful Address and I join most sincerely in your expression of deep regret at the melancholy tidings of the death of My illustrious kinsman and friend His Majesty the King of the Belgians. I shall not fail to convey to His Royal Highness the Duke of Brabant your Message of profound sympathy with Her Majesty the Queen of the Belgians and the Royal Family and with the Government and people of Belgium in the great loss which they have sustained.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

PUBLIC WORKS FACILITIES SCHEME (BOSTON CORPORATION) BILL.

Considered; to be read the Third time To-morrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — LORD PRIVY SEAL (MISSION).

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 1.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Lord Privy Seal, on his visit to Berlin, will be in a position to raise any matters outside the question of disarmament?

The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir John Simon): The purpose of my hon. Friend's visit to Paris, Berlin and Rome, was stated by me in the House on the 6th February. I can add nothing to the statement which I then made.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Has he raised at Berlin the question of our opinion about the incarceration of Dimitroff?

Sir J. SIMON: I do not think that I can usefully add to the answer which I
have given. If my right hon. and gallant Friend will refer to the report of 6th February, he will see that I made a clear statement of the purpose of the Lord Privy Seal's mission.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is there no way in which he can intimate to the German Government our opinion or public opinion on the retention of Dimitroff in prison?

Sir J. SIMON: I can add nothing further to what I have already said.

Oral Answers to Questions — MANCHURIA.

Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: 2.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has received any reports from His Majesty's representatives in Manchuria regarding the charges made by the Commissar for Foreign Affairs of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics that Japan is taking steps, through her agents in Manchuria, to take possession of the Chinese Eastern Railway; and whether he can make any statement as to the present position on and in the neighbourhood of the railway?

Sir J. SIMON: No, Sir. Reports on the subject have, however, been received from His Majesty's Embassies at Moscow and Tokyo. These reports do not add anything to the information in regard to the matter which has already appeared in the Press. As regards the second part of the question it is understood that limited services are in operation along the system of the Chinese Eastern Railway. These services are, however, subject to interference from banditry.

Mr. MACLEAN: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he can make inquiries into this matter, and see if any definite statement can be made from the area where these particular occurrences are happening

Sir A. SHIRLEY BENN: May I ask my right hon. Friend if communications from His Majesty's representatives in any part of the world sent to the Foreign Office are not confidential, unless they are disclosed by the Department?

Sir J. SIMON: In answer to the question last put, I have already given to my hon. Friend opposite the answer that we
have had some information from the Ambassadors at Moscow and Tokyo, and they confirm what has appeared in the Press, but they do not add anything to it.

Mr. MACLEAN: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the purpose of this question is to find out what actually is happening there, so that he can corroborate or deny what has already been given in the Press?

Sir J. SIMON: I will look into the matter further very gladly, as the hon. Member suggests, but I am not sure that I shall be able to add anything to the information already available.

Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: 3.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any reply has yet been received from the Secretary-General of the League of Nations as to the methods which the British Post Office and other post offices should follow in settling postal accounts with the Manchukuo authorities without thereby involving their countries in formal recognition of the Manchukuo Government?

Sir J. SIMON: No, Sir. The question will, as I understand it, have to be considered by the Advisory Committee appointed by the Assembly resolution of the 24th February, 1933. I cannot say when the committee is likely to meet. Some preliminary study may be required and there may not be a convenient date before the next ordinary meeting of the Council in May.

Oral Answers to Questions — AUSTRIA.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 4.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information to give the House as to the Three-Power Pact to maintain the independence of Austria?

Mr. ANEURIN BEVAN: 6.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs upon whose initiative was it decided to issue a joint statement with the Governments of France and Italy as to the necessity of maintaining Austria's independence and integrity?

Sir J. SIMON: It will be remembered that on the 13th February I read to the House the text of an aide memoire handed to the Austrian Minister in which the policy of His Majesty's Government regarding the independence of Austria
was clearly stated. On the following day the French Ambassador suggested to me that the French and Italian Governments should join with His Majesty's Government in making a declaration on the same lines as that already made by His Majesty's Government. I understood from him that this suggestion had already been discussed between the French and Italian Governments and that the latter were favourably disposed towards it. I subsequently informed the French and Italian Governments that His Majesty's Government were disposed to join in any statement which was substantially the same as the one which I had myself already made on more than one occasion. A joint announcement was accordingly issued to the Press on the 17th February.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Has the right hon. Gentleman made it clear, both to the Italian and the French Governments, that we shall not raise a finger to protect the independence of the Austrian Government?

Sir J. SIMON: The statement, my right hon. and gallant Friend will see, is one of general principles, and I would remind him that it is specifically limited by saying, "In accordance with the relevant treaties."

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Will it not be possible for His Majesty's Government, if they are asked to join in this guarantee for Austria, to make it a condition of such guarantee, firstly, that there shall be a restoration of democratic government in Austria?

Mr. COCKS: If the Italian Government is in favour of the independence of Austria, why has she interfered in this matter and advised this Fascist attack in Austria?

Mr. DAVID GRENFELL: 5.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the attitude of His Majesty's Government towards the appeal made by the Austrian Government to the League of Nations has been modified by recent events in that country?

Sir J. SIMON: The attitude of His Majesty's Government towards the appeal which the Austrian Government has announced its intention of making to the League of Nations is and remains that we should refrain from making any pronouncement in advance on the subject of the dispute to which it relates.

Mr. GRENFELL: Is it not the case that Austria has made an appeal and that a reply is due to her from the League of Nations, and, further, that the League of Nations could attend to this difficulty very much better than any foreign Power?

Sir J. SIMON: My hon. Friend has not stated the position quite correctly, and I would make it clear. The Austrian Government has intimated that it is appealing to the League of Nations under Article 11 of the Covenant. When that appeal is entertained the members of the Council will have to consider what to judge, and report upon it as best they can. His Majesty's Government take the view—I think that every Government in turn in this country has always taken this view—that when there is an appeal to the Council by any party which raises a dispute between two parties, it is not right for us to express a view on the one side until the other side has had an opportunity of being heard.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: What I wish to ask is: Will his attitude towards this appeal be governed in any way by the recent events in Austria, more particularly by the fact that after he made an appeal for clemency, executions have taken place?

Sir J. SIMON: I think that the right view must be that, when an appeal is made to a tribunal which has to decide things as fairly as it can, the proper course is for every member of the tribunal to keep an open mind until both sides of the case have been heard. With great respect, I would deprecate an effort of the British Government, or any British Government, to make ex parte statements when no other Government has done so.

Mr. COCKS: 7.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, when special permission was granted to the Austrian Government last summer to increase its effectives by 8,000 men in order to deal with the Nazi menace, any conditions were attached as to the uses to which these forces should be put?

Sir J. SIMON: The purpose for which these 8,000 men were asked for, and the conditions in which they were authorised, appear in the notes exchanged between the Austrian Chargé
d'Affaires and myself at the time the permission was granted, the substance of which was published in the Press and of which I will send the hon. Member a copy.

Mr. COCKS: Will the right hon. Gentleman inform the Austrian Government that the use of these forces to destroy democracy is a breach of faith?

Mr. COCKS: 8.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make it clear to the Austrian Chancellor that His Majesty's Government's policy as to the necessity of maintaining Austria's independence and integrity in accordance with the relevant treaties is dependent upon the due observance by the Austrian Government of Article 372 of the Treaty of St. Germain, by which that government recognised as of special importance the principle of the right of association for the workers?

Sir J. SIMON: Article 372 of the Treaty of St. Germain, like the corresponding articles in the other Treaties of Peace, indicates the methods and principles recommended for the regulation of labour. The application of these principles is entrusted to the International Labour Organisation, of which Austria is a member, and I have no reason to doubt that Austria is fully conscious of the methods and principles recommended in the article to which the hon. Member refers.

Mr. COCKS: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that in a Fascist State these associations are abrogated? In these circumstances, is there any reason why we should uphold the independence of a Fascist State?

Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise out of the question.

Mr. GRENFELL: How does the right hon. Gentleman hope to maintain the value of the International Labour Office if there is no freedom to organise within a country by constituent members of that body?

Sir J. SIMON: That question is put on an assumption. I can answer it in this way: If there are charges against any State in this respect—and the Article of the Treaty applies to all States—the proper tribunal to discuss them will, of course, be the International Labour Office.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY.

BUILDING CONTRACTS.

Miss WARD: 9.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he can give the House statistics showing the total tonnage of Admiralty contracts completed during 1913, 1929 and 1933, respectively; the proportions allocated to the north-east coast, the Clyde and Belfast; the comparative values of such contracts in each of the years quoted; and the number of men employed in each case in each year?

The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Sir Bolton Eyres Monsell): I understand the question to refer to the contracts placed in the years mentioned, and, with my hon. Friend's permission, I will circulate the tonnages and comparative values in the OFFICIAL REPORT. I regret that I have no information of the number of men employed in each year.

Mr. RADFORD: Will the right hon. Gentleman include in his written reply the figures relative to the Mersey for the same years?

Sir B. EYRES MONSELL: I have only answered the question on the Order Paper.

Mr. MACLEAN: In circulating the statement, will the right hon. Gentleman

—
Total Tonnage.
North-East Coast.
Clyde.
Belfast.







Per cent.
Per cent.
Per cent.


1913
…
…
…
110,000
37
30
Nil


1929
…
…
…
7,000
16
Nil
Nil


1933
…
…
…
24,000
5
43
22

The 1929 tonnage includes a Sloop for India. Under the 1933 programme, tenders for two Cruisers remain to be invited.

The percentages in terms of value of the contracts (including contracts for machinery for Dockyard-built ships) are:


—
North East Coast.
Clyde.
Belfast.


1913
…
44
27
Nil


1929
…
21
Nil
Nil


1933
…
3
44
20

PENSIONERS AND RESERVISTS (EMERGENCY SERVICE).

Mr. VYVYAN ADAMS: 10.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether any,

give the capacity to-day of those districts for building ships and also the numbers of men registered in each of these areas who take part in the shipbuilding trade?

Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: Will the right hon. Gentleman place further contracts for warships so as to provide work for men in these centres who are out of work?

Sir B. EYRES MONSELL: I have answered that question before. We have to go by the tenders, and we have to accept the lowest tender. In reply to the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Maclean), I may say that I had already framed the answer and what he asks for is not in it. I have only answered what is in the question.

Mr. MACLEAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman endeavour to get the information?

Sir B. EYRES MONSELL: Certainly.

Following are the figures:

The total tonnage ordered under the programmes for the years 1913, 1929 and 1933, and the percentages thereof allocated to the areas concerned are approximately:

and, if so, what, distinction as regards liability for service in a national emergency is made between naval long-service pensioners and naval reservists?

Sir B. EYRES MONSELL: Pensioners are mobilised when, in the opinion of the Admiralty, an emergency requiring their services arises, and must serve for so long as the Admiralty consider necessary. Naval Reservists are mobilised only on such occasions as the Sovereign thinks fit, after Royal proclamation or notification to Parliament; and their term of service is limited by Statute.

NEW HEBRIDES (EXCHANGE RATES).

Captain CUNNINGHAM-REID: 11.
asked the Secretary of State for the
Colonies how the official rate of exchange between francs and the pound sterling adopted by the Condominium Government of the New Hebrides is determined; how often this rate is reviewed in the light of the local commercial rates of exchange; and if he is satisfied that the system is sufficiently flexible to avoid prejudice to the financial interests of the British Government in the event of violent fluctuations of the franc?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. Malcolm MacDonald): I am replying for the Secretary of State for the Colonies. The rate of exchange for Condominium Government purposes is fixed by agreement with the French Government. The rate adopted in the Protocol of 6th August, 1914 (Cmd. 1681), was 25 francs to the pound sterling, and this rate was adjusted to 124 francs to the pound sterling by an exchange of notes in September, 1930 (Cmd. 3690). The rate has not been altered since but the question is under discussion between His Majesty's Government and the French Government, and the point to which my hon. and gallant Friend draws attention will of course be borne in mind.

CEYLON (SALARIES LEVY).

Captain FULLER: 12.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what is the levy on the salaries of public servants in Ceylon; and how much revenue it produces?

Mr. M. MacDONALD: The temporary levy on the salaries of public servants in Ceylon is as follows:
10 per cent. on salaries of Rs. 4,800 and over;
7½ per cent. on salaries less than Rs. 4,800 but not less than Rs. 900;
5 per cent. on salaries less than Rs. 900 but not less than Rs. 450;
2½ per cent. on salaries less than Rs. 450.
The revised estimate of the yield in the financial year 1932–3 was Rs. 2,400,000.

Sir ASSHETON POWNALL: Can the hon. Member say what are the monthly rates?

Captain FULLER: Is it not a fact that under the present constitution such items as pay, emolument and pensions
cannot be reduced by the Council and that this levy is in fact illegal?

Mr. MacDONALD: This levy has been authorised by the Governor of Ceylon and is therefore perfectly within the terms of the constitution. These are annual salaries, and, as far as I know, the levy is per year. I am afraid that I must have notice of the question of the hon. Member for East Lewisham (Sir A. Pownall). As the hon. Member knows, I am extremely unfamiliar with this matter.

TANGANYIKA (RAILWAY FINANCES).

Mr. PARKINSON: 13.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been drawn to the desire expressed by the Permanent Mandates Commission that His Majesty's Government should give a detailed account in their annual report on Tanganyika of the measures they were taking to put Mr. Roger Gibbs's report on railway finances into effect; and whether up-to-date steps have been taken in this direction?

Mr. M. MacDONALD: In compliance with the request made by the Permanent Mandates Commission in its report to the League Council on the Twenty-third Session, particulars will be given in the Annual Reports on Tanganyika as to any steps which may be taken with regard to that territory on the basis of the suggestions in Mr. Gibbs's report. That report is still under consideration.

SOUTH AFRICAN MINES (NATIVE RECRUITMENT).

Mr. PARKINSON: 14.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, with regard to the proposal, on the ground of recent improvements in medical and hygienic conditions, to raise the embargo hitherto placed on the recruiting of native labourers for work on South African mines from territories north of latitude 22 degrees south, the Governments and also the native authorities in Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland have been consulted on the matter; whether he is satisfied that the high mortality which prevailed among natives imported from such territories prior to the placing of the embargo in 1914 may no longer be expected; and, if so, on what grounds?

Mr. M. MacDONALD: It is understood that the Government of the Union of South Africa have decided as an experiment to permit the recruitment of a limited number of natives from north of 22 degrees south latitude for work on the mines. The permission of the Governments of Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland would be required if it were proposed to recruit natives in those territories, but I am not aware at present that this is contemplated.

ST. VINCENT (ARROWROOT PRODUCTION).

Mr. HANNON: 15.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if his attention has been called to the recent report prepared by Mr. Stockdale, the agricultural adviser to the Colonial Office on the production of arrowroot in the island of St. Vincent; and if steps have been taken to give effect to the recommendations embodied in that report through restriction of planting and by limitation on a quota basis of factory production?

Mr. M. MacDONALD: Yes, Sir. The recommendation that the planting of arrowroot should be restricted and that factory production should be limited on a quota basis is at present under consideration by the St. Vincent Arrowroot Association and the Colonial Government concerned.

Mr. HANNON: Will the Colonial Office give every possible assistance to this Island in the development of arrowroot, as this is the only source of arrowroot in the world?

JAMAICA RUM.

Mr. HANNON: 16.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what action has been taken, and with what result, with regard to the representations from the Jamaica Imperial Association urging the safeguarding of the term Jamaica rum in Europe?

Mr. M. MacDONALD: No representations of the nature suggested have been received from the Jamaica Imperial Association. At the request of the secretary, certain information regarding the trade in rum and the legislation which might be held to govern the term "Jamaica rum" in certain European countries has been obtained and supplied to the association.

Mr. HANNON: Now that we have established the reputation of whiskey throughout the world may we not equally seek to establish the reputation of Jamaica rum?

TRINIDAD (COCOA INDUSTRY).

Mr. HANNON: 17.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to the recent report prepared by Mr. Stockdale, the agricultural adviser to the Colonial Office, on the situation which confronts the cocoa industry in Trinidad; and if any action is contemplated by His Majesty's Government, in consultation with the local administration to assist the industry?

Mr. M. MacDONALD: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. My hon. Friend will remember that in reply to a question of his on the 16th of November last my right hon. Friend informed him of the action which His Majesty's Government were taking with regard to cocoa. I am now in a position to say that the memorandum then referred to has been sent to the Secretariat of the League of Nations for communication to the Bureau of the Monetary and Economic Conference. His Majesty's Government consider that the most practical step which they could take to assist cocoa producers in Trinidad is to press on the arrangements for a general conference of all countries substantially interested in the production of cocoa. As regards breeding and disease, and other questions referred to in Mr. Stockdale's report, his views are engaging the careful attention of the Colonial Government.

Mr. HANNON: While thanking the hon. Member for his reply, may I ask whether the Colonial Office will keep in view the interests of cocoa production in the British Empire and see that full justice is done to that industry?

Oral Answers to Questions — AVIATION.

NIGHT FLYING (TOWNS AND CITIES).

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: 18.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether foreign commercial or privately-owned foreign aeroplanes are allowed to cruise over London and other large cities,
not on any regular air route, at night without a permit; and what, if any, regulations in this respect obtain with regard to foreign cities?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Philip Sassoon): No permits would be necessary in the case of civil aircraft of States that are parties to the international Air Convention or of certain other States with which special air agreements are in operation. This is subject, of course, to compliance with the regulations as to safety provisions and navigation lights, and to the avoidance of any prohibited areas. The position as regards flights over foreign towns is reciprocal.

PILOTS.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 19.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether he can give an estimate of the number of persons in Great Britain and Northern Ireland now able to fly who could be trusted to act as pilots?

Sir P. SASSOON: I can perhaps best answer the right hon. and gallant Member's question by stating the number of civil pilots holding A or B licences issued in this country—which is about 2,870.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: The Under-Secretary has completely misunderstood the purport of my question. I wanted to know the number of persons in the Air Force and elsewhere who were capable of flying high-speed machines?

Sir P. SASSOON: I am sorry that I have misunderstood the question. Perhaps the right hon. and gallant Member will be good enough to put it down again.

NIGHT SERVICES.

Sir PHILIP DAWSON: 20.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether, having regard to the regular night services operated by foreign lines, anything is to be done to encourage night flying in connection with British air lines?

Sir P. SASSOON: As my hon. Friend knows, the necessary ground organisation exists for night services between this country and abroad. The development of night flying rests primarily with the operating companies concerned, but my hon. Friend may rest assured that the possibility of improving British services in this respect is constantly borne in
mind by all concerned. For example, proposals for night flying on the Indian route are under active consideration.

DUTCH AIR SERVICE.

Sir P. DAWSON: 21.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether, before His Majesty's Government consent to the proposal for air services by the Royal Dutch air lines between Amsterdam and Great Britain, they will consider the advisability of making it a condition that reciprocal services should be carried out by the British-owned and British-operated planes?

Sir P. SASSOON: Consent in such a case would normally be subject to the grant of reciprocal consent for a British service if required, and I have no doubt that in the case in point this would be acceptable to the Netherlands authorities.

Brigadier-General NATION: Can the Under-Secretary say whether the terminal station of this line in the United Kingdom has been decided upon?

Sir P. SASSOON: No, not yet.

Mr. WHITESIDE: Can the hon. Member assure the House that he will not permit the Royal Dutch to operate an internal air line in this country?

Sir P. SASSOON: The negotiations are not sufficiently advanced to say anything more, but I can assure the hon. and gallant Member that the interests of any British operating company will be safeguarded.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

ROAD SIGNS AND MARKS.

Sir P. DAWSON: 22.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he will consider making a regulation requiring posts painted white to be erected every 50 yards or so and/or the curbs to be painted white along our main thorough-fares in cities and main roads in the country, as this would materially contribute to the safety of driving at night and in foggy weather?

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Oliver Stanley): I have no power to make a regulation of this nature. Highway authorities can, and do where they think it desirable, paint curbs or erect safety posts defining the limits of the carriage-
way. Expenditure on classified roads under these headings is eligible for grants from the Road Fund at the normal rates.

BRIDGES.

Mr. HEPWORTH: 23.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he can make any definite statement as to the ability of his Department to pay a 75 per cent. Grant-in-Aid of any suitable scheme put forward by any local authority for dealing with the reconstruction of weak bridges; and whether he is prepared now to receive representations from local authorities in Yorkshire on the subject?

Mr. STANLEY: 75 per cent. grants from the Road Fund will again be available during the next financial year for the reconstruction of privately-owned weak bridges, and I am prepared to give consideration to any schemes for this purpose which may be submitted by highway authorities.

Mr. CHORLTON: 28.
asked the Minister of Transport if he has considered the application for a grant from the Manchester Corporation towards the widening of the dangerous railway bridge crossing Queen's Road, Miles Platting; and what action he intends to take?

Mr. STANLEY: The position has not altered in any way since I answered a similar question by my hon. Friend on this matter on the 29th January. No application from the corporation for a grant has reached me.

MOTOR CAR HEADLIGHTS.

Mr. WHITESIDE: 24.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that accidents are liable to be caused by incorrectly focussed headlights; and whether he will make improperly adjusted lights a punishable offence?

Mr. STANLEY: The dazzling effect of headlights may be intensified by incorrect focussing, but my attention has not been drawn to any accidents which have been attributed directly to this cause. As at present advised, I do not think that it would be practicable to enforce correct focussing by a regulation, but I will bear my hon. Friend's suggestion in mind.

Mr. JOHN RUTHERFORD: 26.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he will consider making it compulsory for all motor cars to be fitted with the system
of headlight control by which the off-side headlight can be extinguished and the near-side light turned down and to the left or, alternatively, both headlights turned down and to the left?

Mr. STANLEY: The devices to which my hon. Friend refers for preventing dazzle are in common use, but there are other systems for which equal or greater efficiency is claimed. Most modern vehicles are provided with anti-dazzle devices and I have not thought it necessary to make a regulation on the subject. I have, however, asked the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders to consider the question of the lighting of vehicles generally in relation to public safety and to let me have their views, when I will review the whole matter.

PUBLIC PASSENGER VEHICLES (STOPPING PLACES).

Mr. WHITESIDE: 25.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that in some cases the stopping places of omnibuses and tramcars are not only common to both types of vehicle, but are sometimes placed opposite one another on either side of the road, thus causing congestion when stoppage is coincident; and whether he will consider taking action against this procedure?

Mr. STANLEY: My Department fixes safety stops for tramcars, but otherwise I have no powers outside London to fix stopping places for either tramcars or omnibuses. Should these be fixed inconveniently I think that representations to the police or to the local authority concerned would normally result in an adjustment.

ROAD SERVICE LICENCES (HIGHLANDS).

Sir IAN MACPHERSON: 27.
asked the Minister of Transport if he is aware that the traffic commissioners have decided to grant licences for Sunday omnibus excursions in the Highland area, in spite of the protests of the churches, the county councils, and other public bodies in that area; and if, in view of the public indignation aroused, he will withhold his sanction to the order?

Mr. STANLEY: I have no power to revoke or alter road service licences granted by the traffic commissioners unless a valid appeal is made to me by a person so entitled under Section 81 of
the Road Traffic Act, 1930. I have to-day received an appeal relating to these particular licences from the Sutherland County Council and I have it under examination.

Sir I. MACPHERSON: Is the Minister aware that there is also an appeal from the Ross-shire County Council?

Mr. STANLEY: In that case there is an appeal.

NUMBER PLATES (ILLUMINATION).

Mr. LEONARD: 30.
asked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been called to the inadequacy of most tail lights on motor vehicles to illuminate their number plates; and if he will take steps to make compulsory the use of a tail light so enclosed as to shine through white opaque glass letters and numbers?

Mr. STANLEY: I agree that the number plates of many motor vehicles do not comply with the regulations, which require that every letter and figure shall be easily distinguishable. I am, however, advised that in hours of darkness it is possible satisfactorily to illuminate the number plate by reflected light, and therefore do not at present feel justified in making compulsory the use of internal illumination.

Mr. LEONARD: Is the Minister aware that this form of illumination is in practice in other countries and has proved satisfactory? Would it not be advisable to introduce it in this country for the protection of the public?

PEDESTRIANS.

Mr. LEONARD: 31.
asked the Minister of Transport if he is aware that pedestrians take their guidance from the automatic traffic signals at street crossings; and what steps he proposes to ensure that vehicles filtering off the all-clear road do not cause danger to foot travellers obeying the signals?

Mr. STANLEY: In accordance with the recommendations of the Departmental Committee on Traffic Signs, I propose in the next edition of the Highway Code, to warn pedestrians that it is not safe for them to rely solely on signals when crossing at a road junction but that they should, in addition, pay attention to the
movements of traffic and particularly of turning traffic. I also propose to warn drivers of the necessity for care when turning to the left or to the right after passing the green signal.

Mr. LIDDALL: 32.
asked the Minister of Transport if, in order to ensure the greater safety of pedestrians, he will recommend all local authorities to allocate the only points where pedestrians will be permitted to cross any public highway; to have suitable signs erected; and, in as many parts as possible, to have an officer in charge of the crossing?

Mr. STANLEY: I have the whole question of better regulation of pedestrian crossing places under consideration and will bear my hon. Friend's suggestion in mind.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY.

OIL EXTRACTION.

Mr. MARTIN: 34.
asked the Secretary for Mines how many gallons of oil have been produced from coal in the United Kingdom since the beginning of last year to the latest date for which figures are available; and how many were produced during 1931 and 1932?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Ernest Brown): No official information is available but the following quantities of oil are estimated to have been produced from coal by various processes in the last three years:

—
Crude Benzole and other Spirit.
Creosote





Million Gallons.


1931
…
…
40
63


1932
…
…
39
55


1933
…
…
48
60

The figures for 1933 are provisional and subject to revision.

Mr. MARTIN: Can the hon. Member say whether the figures show that there has been an increase in the production of oil from coal since the oil tax was introduced in the last Budget?

Mr. BROWN: If the hon. Member will look at the figures, he will see that that is so.

Mr. T. SMITH: Can the hon. Member say how much coal was used to extract this oil?

Mr. BROWN: Not without notice.

COAL DUST.

Mr. DAVID DAVIES: 35.
asked the Secretary for Mines the number of samples taken of coal dust during 1932 and 1933, in each of the inspectorate divisions, giving results of the content of incombustible matter and the content of matter injurious to mine workers?

Mr. E. BROWN: During the year 1932, 3,864 samples of the dust on underground roadways in coal mines were taken by the inspectors, and 87 per cent. of these samples were found on analysis to contain 50 per cent. or more of incombustible matter. Details for each of the inspection divisions will be found on page 73 of the Annual Report of the Chief Inspector. The corresponding figures for 1933 are not yet available. The measures taken to prevent the use of stone dust which would be injurious to health are based on a consideration of the character of the stone dust itself rather than of the mixed dusts on the roadways and no general statistical information on this point is available.

Mr. BANFIELD (for Mr. DAGGAR): 38.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether he can state the amount of coal dust, minimum and maximum, per cubic foot of air space, necessary to propagate an explosion in a mine?

Mr. E. BROWN: The amounts vary considerably with the character of the coal and the fineness of the coal dust. The finest dusts of the most inflammable coals are the most explosive and the least quantity that will propagate flame, when raised in a cloud under experimental conditions, is rather less than one tenth of an ounce per cubic foot of air. The greatest quantity is difficult to determine, but explosions have been produced experimentally with as much as two ounces of such coal dust per cubic foot of air.

INSPECTIONS (WEST CANNOCK, No. 5 COLLIERY).

Mr. D. DAVIES: 36.
asked the Secretary for Mines the number of visits made by His Majesty's inspectors of mines to
the West Cannock No. 5 Colliery, Staffordshire, during the year 1932, and from 1st January to 15th May, 1933?

Mr. E. BROWN: The answer is fourteen times underground and twice on the surface during 1932; seven times underground and twice on the surface between 1st January and 15th May, 1933.

EXPLOSIONS.

Mr. D. DAVIES: 37.
asked the Secretary for Mines the number of violations of the Coal Mines Act, 1911, and the regulations provided under that Act, discovered as the result of the inquiries held to ascertain the cause of the colliery explosions at the Garswood Hall No. 9 colliery, Lancashire, 12th November, 1932, and at West Cannock No. 5 colliery, Staffordshire, 16th May, 1933; and, if there were violations, what action has been taken and with what results?

Mr. E. BROWN: The inquiries showed that the explosions in question resulted primarily from defects in ventilation. The reports of the inquiries were published. These and the available evidence were carefully considered at that time and I came then to the conclusion that I should not be justified in taking proceedings against the managements concerned under the Coal Mines Act. It was also concluded from both inquiries that the immediate cause of the explosions was incendive sparking from an unsafe signalling system. Precautions had been taken, but they were not effective; this was due, however, to lack of understanding of a very complicated and difficult problem. Within a fortnight of the publication of the report of the Garswood Hall Inquiry, I published an explanatory memorandum, of which I am sending the hon. Member a copy, to make this problem easier to understand, and I have since taken other steps to simplify the position. Unfortunately, the explosion at West Cannock occurred on the same day as the memorandum in question was received by the management, and it was not possible for them to take in time the further precautions which might have prevented the explosion in this instance.

Mr. D. GRENFELL: Can the hon. Member say whether there is any connection between the information as to visits of inspection given in the previous answer and the implications in this question?

Mr. BROWN: The explanatory memorandum—if the hon. Member would like a copy I will see that he gets it—was sent to all owners and managers in May, 1933. It is difficult to deal with these complicated matters by way of question and answer.

Mr. GRENFELL: I want to know why there were the frequent visits mentioned in the previous reply unless there was something wrong in this pit?

Mr. BROWN: The answer is that the number of inspections was normal for a pit of this size.

HON. MEMBERS: No!

Mr. BROWN: Hon. Members have asked for the answer and I have given it.

STATISTICS.

Mr. BANFIELD (for Mr. DAGGAR): 39.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether he can state the number of separate mines employed in producing coal, in each of the inspectorate divisions, for the years 1932 and 1933?

Mr. E. BROWN: As the reply involves a statistical table I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the table:


Inspection Divisions.
Number of Mines which produced coal in




1932.
1933.


Scotland
…
315
303


Northern
…
342
337


Yorkshire
…
199
193


North Midland
…
160
158


North Western
…
260
245


Cardiff and Forest of Dean
…
267
263


Swansea
…
183
179


Midland and Southern
…
148
154


Great Britain
…
1,874
1,841

OLD AGE PENSIONS.

Mr. D. GRENFELL: 40.
asked the Minister of Health the estimated number of persons insured under the National Health Insurance for old age pensions and widows' pensions who have arrived at the age of 60 years, with the number of persons already in receipt of such pen-
sions under the Acts of 1925 to 1929 and the Acts of 1909 to 1924, respectively?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Mr. Shakespeare): It is estimated that at the 31st December, 1931—the latest date for which such information is available—there were approximately 720,000 persons between the ages of 60 and 65 who were insured for old age and widows' pensions under the Contributory Pensions Acts. The number of persons in receipt of widows' pensions under the Contributory Pensions Acts and old age pensions under the Contributory Pensions Acts and the Old Age Pensions Acts, 1908 to 1924, was, at the 31st December 1933, approximately 2,993,000. My right hon. Friend is sending the hon. Member particulars for the two sets of Acts as they are somewhat long.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

HEALTH INSURANCE CONTRIBUTIONS.

Mr. D. GRENFELL: 41.
asked the Minister of Health whether he can state the number of members of approved societies who, in the last contribution year, were in arrears owing to the reduction in the number of franks provided during unemployment, and the number of persons who had paid up their arrears by 31st December last; and whether he is satisfied that approved societies are granting ample facilities for the payment of arrears by receiving instalments where unemployed members desire to pay arrears by weekly amounts?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: The information which the hon. Member asks for in the first part of the question could be obtained only by asking for separate returns from each of 7,000 approved societies and branches. The answer to the second part of the question is in the affirmative.

UNEMPLOYMENT BILL (CLAUSE 18).

Mr. GRAHAM WHITE: 45.
asked the Prime Minister if it is the intention of the Government to propose to the House the recommittal of Clause 18 of the Unemployment Bill?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): I can only refer the hon. Member to what I said on this subject on the 13th February last in reply to a
Private Notice Question by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee), to which at present I have nothing to add.

LANARKSHIRE.

Mr. D. GRAHAM: 56 and 57.
asked the Minister of Labour (1) if he will state the number of men, women, boys and girls registering at the various Employment Exchanges in the county of Lanark in January, 1931; and the numbers registering at the present time;
(2) The number of persons who were employed on the staff of the various Employment Exchanges in the county of Lanark in January, 1931; and the number employed at the present time?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. R. S. Hudson): I am sending the hon. Member the information for which he asks.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, SCOTLAND (SECRETARY).

Mr. THOMAS RAMSAY: 42.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if the post of secretary to the Department of Agriculture is about to become vacant; if he will see that the position is filled by the appointment of a Scotsman who has a knowledge of Highland problems and land settlement needs and methods; and, if not already conversant with the problem of roadless islands and footpath areas in the Outer Hebrides, will he ensure that the new secretary shall acquire a competent knowledge as soon as possible?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. Skelton): My right hon. Friend much regrets that Sir Robert Greig, Secretary to the Department of Agriculture for Scotland, will shortly retire from the public service. The hon. Member may rest assured that my right hon. Friend will take all relevant factors into consideration in appointing a successor.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is the Under-Secretary not aware that Scots people are quite prepared to compete for any office on their own merits, independently of their nationality?

EX-SERVICE MEN.

Mr. STOREY: 55.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that men who were debarred from serving in His Majesty's Forces during the War owing to the loss of a limb prior to 1914 are refused consideration for temporary posts in Government Departments on account of the preference accorded to ex-service men; and whether he will consider relaxing this rule in such instances?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hore-Belisha): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. In regard to the second part, it would not be practicable to extend to a paricular caegory of non-service men the preference which is accorded to ex-service men.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

DUTCH EAST INDIES (JAPANESE IMPORTS).

Mr. CHORLTON: 44.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is taking any joint action with Holland and the Dutch East Indies and our own Colonies with reference to Japanese imports to those countries?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Dr. Burgin): As has been stated previously, the Government desire that the question of Japanese competition both in the Empire and elsewhere shall, if possible, be dealt with by direct agreement between the British and Japanese industrialists. Discussions to this end are now proceeding in London and no question of official action by the Government arises at present.

Mr. CHORLTON: If this affects the Dutch East Indies could we not have some communication with Holland? Is it not necessary in the interests of our own trade to do that?

Dr. BURGIN: It is purely a matter for the industries concerned.

Captain FULLER: Is it not a question of widening the basis of the discussions?

ANGLO-RUSSIAN TRADE AGREEMENT.

Mr. ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: 47.
asked the Prime Minister when the House will have an opportunity of debating the Anglo-Soviet trade agreement?

The PRIME MINISTER: Conversations are taking place through the usual channels and I would ask my hon. Friend to await the statement on Business which I will make to-morrow.

SCOTLAND (POOR RELIEF).

Mr. DUNCAN GRAHAM: 43.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will state the number of persons who were in receipt of public assistance in the parishes of Blantyre, Bothwell, Cambuslang, Dalserf, Dalziel, and Hamilton, and the burghs of Airdrie, Coatbridge, Hamilton, Motherwell, and Wishaw in January, 1931, and the numbers in January of the present year?

Statement showing the number of sane persons in receipt of public assistance at the 15th January, 1931, and the 15th January, 1934, in the County of Lanark (including small burghs) and in certain of the large burghs in the County.


Area.
15th January, 1931.
15th January, 1934.




Sane Poor.
Dependants.
Total.
Sane Poor.
Dependants.
Total.


Lanark County (including small burghs).
…
6,106
8,500
14,606
10,662
12,901
23,563


Airdrie
…
526
492
1,018
750
893
1,643


Coatbridge
…
1,107
1,063
2,170
1,549
1,444
2,993


Hamilton
…
1,150
1,662
2,812
1,813
2,710
4,523


Motherwell and Wishaw
…
923
1,098
2,021
1,375
2,198
3,573


NOTE.—The figures in the statement include both destitute able-bodied persons and ordinary poor persons.

FIRE INSURANCE (PROSECUTIONS).

Mr. STOURTON: 48.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been drawn to the widespread system of incendiarism and corruption, as revealed by evidence advanced at the recent trials of Leopold Harris and Captain Miles, initiated after investigation by the principal insurance companies; if he is aware that the burden of financial responsibility involved in the collation and sifting of evidence was borne by these insurance companies; and if it is the intention to take steps to render assistance to the interested parties with a view to probing this scandal?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir John Gilmour): My attention has been drawn to the facts disclosed by the evidence in the two cases to which my hon. Friend refers. I am aware that subject to allow-

Mr. SKELTON: Under the provisions of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1929, the parish ceased to be the area of Poor Law administration on the 15th May, 1930, and I regret, therefore, that separate figures relating to parishes are not available after that date. The area of administration is now that of the county (including small burghs) and the large burgh, and I propose, with the hon. Member's permission, to circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a statement giving the information asked for in the question in the case of the County of Lanark (including the small burghs) and of the large burghs referred to.

Following is the statement:

ances recoverable under the Costs in Criminal Cases Act, 1908, in the main the burden of financial responsibility in respect of the two prosecutions has, with the full approval of the insurance companies and underwriters concerned, been borne by them, but with regard to the second case, as has been publicly stated, the cost of proving the charges relating to the perversion of justice will fall as a burden on public funds. All necessary police assistance has been given to them in the proceedings referred to and will be available, if required, as to any further matters of a similar character which appear to require investigation.

Major ASTOR: Would my right hon. Friend say whether he received any representation from the offices concerned which paid these expenses?

Sir J. GILMOUR: No, Sir. I understand they are perfectly content.

Mr. GEOFFREY PETO: Is the Home Secretary aware of the very widespread belief in this country and abroad that the Government are in some way responsible for the London Salvage Corps, and will he make it clear that neither the Government nor any local authorities are in any way responsible for or connected with that organisation?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I am glad indeed of the opportunity to disclaim any responsibility on the part of the Government or the local authorities.

Commander MARSDEN: Is it in the public interest and reasonable, when it is almost certain that a crime of this description has been committed, that the Public Prosecutor should leave the proceedings to private interests, in view of the fact particularly that if the private investigations are not adequate it would mean that the criminals would not be brought to justice?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I have no reason to suppose that these questions are not closely watched by the proper authorities. If it were otherwise, undoubtedly it would be desirable that further steps should be taken. But in this case I think justice has been achieved, and so far as I know the responsible authorities have been in close touch with all the proceedings.

CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (TAXATION).

Mr. MABANE: 50.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if any cases have been brought to the attention of the Treasury of co-operative trading societies trading with non-members?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: It is, I think, common knowledge that co-operative societies trade to some extent with non-members.

Mr. MABANE: Are we to take it from the reply that no such trading takes place, or that if such trading does take place the Department takes any action under the Industrial and Provident Societies Act?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: We know that it does take place.

Mr. MABANE: What action then is taken under the Industrial and Provident Societies Act?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: My hon. Friend is under a misapprehension. It does not matter whether the trading is with members or non-members. The profits are taxed.

Mr. LEONARD: Has the hon. Gentleman any reason to doubt the evidence that this form of trading by co-operative societies is only one-half per cent.?

Mr. MABANE: 51.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Commissioners of Inland Revenue are guided by any precise definition of mutual trading in making their assessments to Income Tax of those who claim to be engaging in mutual trading; and, if so, whether he will state what that definition is?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The Income Tax Acts do not define mutual trading, but my hon. Friend is, of course, aware that since the enactment of Section 31 of the Finance Act, 1933, Income Tax is chargeable on all trading profits of incorporated companies or societies, whether of a mutual character or not. In these circumstances the question whether the company's or society's trade is to any extent mutual does not arise for Income Tax purposes.

GREYHOUNDS (RAIL TRANSPORT).

Captain HEILGERS: 49.
asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that on the arrival of an express train from Aberdeen at Carlisle Station it was discovered that three of a vanload of greyhounds were dead and others injured; that the van was not detached from the train at Carlisle, but sent on to Crewe, where it was met by a veterinary surgeon, who destroyed three more seriously injured dogs and treated 16 others; and will he order an inquiry to be made into the matter, with a view to avoiding any recurrence of such cruelty to animals?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I am making inquiries about this matter and will communicate with my hon. and gallant Friend.

INTESTATES' ESTATES.

Mr. NORTH: 53.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury in how many cases during each of the past eight years the estates of intestates dying in England and Wales have passed to the Crown on
the grounds that relatives more remote than first cousins are now excluded from the distribution of intestates' estates under the Administration of Estates Act, 1925; and what has been the aggregate amount so received in each of these years?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I regret that the information desired is not available. My hon. Friend will appreciate that the absence of a claim does not necessarily denote the non-existence of relatives remoter than first cousins. I have no grounds for believing, however, that the cases in question are numerous or involve a substantial amount in the aggregate.

NEW MEMBER SWORN.

Pierce Creagh Loftus, esquire, for the County of East Suffolk (Lowestoft Division).

REGISTRATION AND REGULATION OF OSTEOPATHS.

3.31 p.m.

Mr. BOOTHBY: I beg to move
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to regulate the practice of osteopathy and to prescribe the qualifications of osteopathic practitioners.
The object of the Bill is to set up a statutory board with the necessary powers and authority to compile a register of qualified osteopaths, and to provide for the admission to that register of persons who have followed a prescribed course of study and acquired a prescribed standard of professional competence. One of the most important aspects of the Bill is that it would give the qualified osteopath the right to employ a qualified anaesthetist without the latter falling under the ban of the General Medical Council. The case of Dr. Axham will probably be still in the minds of hon. Members, and I am sure that no hon. Member wishes for a repetition of that sort of thing. I emphasise the fact that under this Bill osteopaths do not seek inclusion in the medical profession. But, as hon. Members well know, many people nowadays believe that many diseases have their origin in maladjustments of the framework of the body, and that cures for those diseases can be effected by the skilled osteopath through manipulative thera-
peutics, which release certain natural forces in the body, and that these forces of themselves, without the aid of drugs or of surgery bring about cures.
The fact remains that for 30 years or more osteopathy has been practised in this country, and it has to its credit a very large number of striking successes. Nobody can deny that fact. That it has failures is equally obvious, but for my part I believe the failures to be due to the existence of so many palpable quacks practising osteopathy on the British public, under no form of regulation whatever. The purpose of the Bill is to eliminate those quacks. I wish to read a very brief quotation from a leading article which appeared in the "Times" recently following a long correspondence upon this question. It more or less sums up the results of that correspondence in the following passage:
The medical profession in Great Britain is an association of private persons subject to regulations made by themselves, which regulations have been confirmed in some instances by Acts of Parliament. Any other private body may legally govern itself in like manner. The way is open, therefore, to the practitioners of osteopathy to set up their own organisation, to teach their own doctrine, and to ask for official recognition of such rules of training and conduct as they may choose to impose upon themselves.
That is what the Bill sets out to do. The osteopaths ask to be recognised by the legislature with a view to their own proper regulation and also with a view to the protection of the British public. What I most sincerely submit to the House is that the practice of osteopathy in this country has now reached such dimensions that the time has arrived when this House ought to accept responsibility, either for prohibiting that practice altogether, or else for allowing osteopaths to submit themselves to proper regulation in the interests of the public.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Boothby, Mr. Hannon, Mr. Ernest Evans, Lieut.-Colonel Moore, Sir Robert Gower, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray Sueter, Sir Park Goff, Sir Philip Dawson, Mr. Wallace, and Mr. Rhys Davies.

REGISTRATION AND REGULATION OF OSTEOPATHS BILL,

"to regulate the practice of osteopathy and to prescribe the qualifications of
osteopathic practitioners," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 60.]

STATUS OF JUDGES.

3.37 p.m.

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: I beg to move
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide that no diminution or reduction in the salaries of His Majesty's judges nor anything otherwise prejudicial to their status or emoluments shall be made except upon an Address by both Houses of Parliament.
The House may remember that on 12th July last year I raised this matter by means of a question to the Prime Minister, and suggested to the right hon. Gentleman that an error had been committed in treating His Majesty's judges as servants of the Crown and subject to cuts in their salaries in the same way as civil servants. I further asked the Prime Minister, in order to make clear the judges' independence of the Executive, as provided by the Act of Settlement and confirmed by the Judicature Act of 1925, whether he would take steps to see that the judges' salaries should be paid in full as before, especially as it was in the national interest that the remuneration of the judges should be such as would encourage the ablest men at the Bar to accept judgeships. In the absence of the Prime Minister on that occasion, my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council laconically replied, "No, Sir," and, if I may say so with respect, made matters rather worse by saying in reply to a supplementary question that he saw no reason why a judge should be excused a cut any more than he was. I need not point out to the House that the judges have never been servants of the Crown in the same way as civil servants or Cabinet Ministers. The oath which they take on assuming office is a special oath confined to the judiciary, and I may remind hon. Members of its terms:
I will well and truly serve His Majesty in the office of a judge, and will do right to all manner of people after the laws and usages of this Realm without fear or favour, affection or ill-will.
That the judges themselves feel keenly on this matter is plain from a memorandum which they prepared and sent to
the Prime Minister so long ago as the 4th December, 1931. The details of this memorandum were kept secret—I think it was marked "Confidential"—until the 27th July of last year, when it was made public by the Government with the approval of the judges. In that memorandum the judges, speaking as a whole, said that it was beyond question that they were not in the same position as civil servants; secondly, that they occupied a vital place in the Constitution, standing equally between the Crown and the Executive and the Executive and the subject; and, thirdly, that for over two centuries it had been considered essential that this security and independence should be maintained inviolate. The House will remember that, in accordance with the terms of the Act of Settlement, judges held office during good behaviour, with their salaries ascertained and established, but, of course, in the event of ill behaviour on the part of the judges, they could be removed by an Address passed by both Houses of Parliament and assented to by His Majesty the King. I should have added that the judges also pointed out in their memorandum that if their salaries were reduced without their consent, their independence of Parliament was seriously impaired.
It is interesting to note in this connection that Article 3 of the Constitution of the United States of America, which expounded what was understood to be the practice in this country in regard to the judiciary, specially states that the judges of the United States shall hold office during good behaviour and that their salaries shall not be diminished during their continuance in office. I submit that a great constitutional question is involved in this matter, and that it should finally be settled without peradventure and without further delay. This is not a question as to whether the judges can afford the cut or whether they suffer more or less hardship than members of the Government, members of the Civil Service, the police, the teachers, or any other section of the community. The question which is of vital importance is whether it is in the national interest that the great constitutional bulwark of the independence of the Judges of Parliament and of the Crown should be called in question or left in any doubt.
In November last the Lord Chancellor publicly stated, on behalf of the Government, that should there be any doubt as to whether the imposition of these cuts in any way undermined or minimised the independence or the prestige of the judges, the Government would not be averse to passing a declaratory Act of Parliament making the position clear. Nothing has, however, been done in this matter, though I think it is evident that there is no question that their position has been gravely prejudiced. I think the House will agree that this is in itself conclusively shown by the memorandum issued by the judges as a whole to which I have already referred, and also by the fact that this opinion is very generally shared by many members of the public, by the legal profession, by the Press, and by others. There is no doubt that their position has been prejudiced by having their salaries reduced by Order in Council under the National Economy Act of 1931. If it is possible for Parliament to take 20 per cent. off the judges' salaries, it is equally possible for Parliament to reduce them by 95 per cent. or by 100 per cent., and we can readily see that in the future some House of Commons might resent something which the judges have done and desire the existing judges to be removed, which, I submit, is not desirable.
I submit that there never was a time when it was so essential as now that the judiciary should be absolutely independent of Parliament, considering that under almost every Act of Parliament that we pass there are rules and regulations and Orders in Council occupying many more pages than the Act itself consists of, and it is essential that, when these rules are made by Government offices and by other people, containing phrases that have never been approved by Parliament, they should be looked into by an absolutely independent tribunal and the liberty of the subject safeguarded. The object of this Bill is accordingly to make clear without any scintilla of doubt the independence of the judges both of the Crown and of the Executive. The operating words of the Bill are these:
No diminution or reduction in the salaries of His Majesty's Judges nor anything otherwise prejudicial to the status or emoluments of the said Judges shall be made or done except upon an Address of both Houses
of Parliament, as is now required for their removal from office, in the same manner and form as provided by the Act of Settlement as confirmed by the Supreme Court of Judicature Act, 1925.
Finally, I submit that the absolute independence of our judges is perhaps the most cherished possession of the British people, and we cannot afford to allow this great bulwark of our Constitution to be in any way undermined or subjected to the slightest doubt.

3.47 p.m.

Mr. TINKER: I hope the House will not agree to the Motion of the hon. Member. We all respect the work of the judges, and we all want them to have a fair deal. We all believe in their integrity, and on that point I cannot allow any Member opposite to question my belief that the judges try to be perfectly fair. But on this question there is a greater issue at stake. The hon. Member would take out of the hands of the House of Commons a power which I think ought to belong to us and which has been fought for for many a long year. Anyone tracing history back will learn of the fight that took place by this House to retain the power over finance, and that means to say that whoever gets money from public funds should be controlled by the House of Commons. The Motion of the hon. Member would hand back to the House of Lords equal power with the Commons on this matter, and if only on that point I think the House would be well advised to reject the Motion.
The Motion mentions the status of the judges. I do not think anyone in this House will try to do anything to lower their status, but the chief point mentioned by the hon. Member was the cutting down of their salaries. We all remember the occasion when everybody, in the time of the country's distress, was called upon to make some contribution to the State, and the same thing that the judges were asked to do many other classes of society were also asked to do, however small their funds. If one section is called upon to make sacrifices, I do not see why all should not be called upon to make sacrifices in an equal way. I do not think there is any likelihood of the judges, because of that reduction of salary, not doing their work thoroughly and properly as they would have done it before.
This is a matter of grave constitutional importance, as the hon. Member said, and a private Member's Motion, on an afternoon, is scarcely the time to bring forward a grave question of this kind. It would be far better, if there is anything serious in it, that it should be dealt with by the Government. If the Government have had an appeal from the judges, as mentioned by the hon. Member, they will have examined it in all its bearings and decided whether or not it is a matter to bring before Parliament to discuss thoroughly. One would think that if that were so the Government would at least have brought it forward. Surely the hon. Gentleman has confidence enough that the representatives of the people assembled in Parliament can deal with the judges. Does he fear that probably some time or other the Government may pass to this side of the House and that it might deal more harshly with the judges? He ought to give us credit that we as citizens of the State will do all we

can to preserve the rights of the judges and to see that they get fair play. I have not seen any reason to complain about the treatment of the judges. Whenever a question arises about their conduct the Speaker is there to protect their rights and to keep us in order as to the methods of procedure. During the whole time I have been here I have never heard anything detrimental to the work of the judges, and I hope that in view of the grave position that will be created if this Motion were passed the House will reject it and leave it to the Government to bring forward a Measure.

Question put,
That leave be given to introduce a Bill to provide that no diminution or reduction in the salaries of His Majesty's judges nor anything otherwise prejudicial to their status or emoluments shall be made except upon an Address by both Houses of Parliament.

The House divided: Ayes, 125; Noes, 46.

Division No. 116.]
AYES.
[3.52 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilst'n)


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Gower, Sir Robert
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.)
Radford, E. A.


Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar
Granville, Edgar
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.


Bonn, Sir Arthur Shirley
Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
Rea, Walter Russell


Boulton, W. W.
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham-


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Guy, J. C. Morrison
Reid, William Allan (Derby)


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Rickards, George William


Buchan, John
Hamilton, Sir R. W. (Orkney & Zetl'nd)
Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)


Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Hanley, Dennis A.
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Ross, Ronald D.


Carver, Major William H.
Harbord, Arthur
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)
Hartland, George A.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Runge, Norah Cecil


Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Rutherford, John (Edmonton)


Christie, James Archibald
Holdsworth, Herbert
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)


Clarry, Reginald George
Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)
Salmon, Sir Isidore


Clayton, Sir Christopher
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Savery, Samuel Servington


Cook, Thomas A.
James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.
Scone, Lord


Cooke, Douglas
Jesson, Major Thomas E.
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Leigh, Sir John
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Crooke, J. Smedley
Liddall, Walter S.
Stourton, Hon. John J.


Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Loftus, Plerce C.
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A. (Pd'gt'n, S.)


Dawson, Sir Philip
Lyons, Abraham Montagu
Thorp, Linton Theodore


Doran, Edward
MacAndrew, Maj. C. G. (Partick)
Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)


Duckworth, George A. V.
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Train, John


Duggan, Hubert John
Macquisten, Frederick Alexander
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Eady, George H.
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Watt, Captain George Steven H.


Eales, John Frederick
Marsden, Commander Arthur
Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour


Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
White, Henry Graham


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Fleming, Edward Lascelles
Moss, Captain H. J.
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir Arnold (Hertf'd)


Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
Munro, Patrick
Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)


Ford, Sir Patrick J.
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Fox, Sir Gifford
North, Edward T.
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Nunn, William



George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)
Owen, Major Goronwy
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Glossop, C. W. H.
Patrick, Colin M.
Sir William Davison and Sir Henry


Goff, Sir Park
Peters, Dr. Sidney John
Cautley.


NOES.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Edwards, Charles
Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Elmley, Viscount
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd.)
Fuller, Captain A. G.
Mainwaring, William Henry


Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)
Gledhill, Gilbert
Maxton, James.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Milner, Major James


Banfield, John William
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.


Batey, Joseph
Grundy, Thomas W.
Paling, Wilfred


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Jenkins, Sir William
Parkinson, John Allen


Buchanan, George
John, William
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)


Cape, Thomas
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Rathbone, Eleanor


Chapman, Col. R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Kirkwood, David
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Leonard, William
Wallace, John (Dunfermline)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lunn, William
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Joslah


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Mabane, William



Edge, Sir William
McEntee, Valentine L.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. Tinker and Mr. Groves.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir William Davison, Sir Arthur Shirley Benn, Sir Reginald Banks, Mr. Cadogan, Sir Henry Cautley, Mr. Raikes, Sir Arnold Wilson, and Sir John Withers.

STATUS OF JUDGES BILL,

"to provide that no diminution or reduction in the salaries of His Majesty's judges nor anything otherwise prejudicial to their status or emoluments shall be made except upon an Address by both Houses of Parliament," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 2nd March, and to be printed. [Bill 61.]

BILLS REPORTED

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (CROSBY LITHERLAND AND WATERLOO JOINT CEMETERY DISTRICT) BILL.

Reported, with Amendments (Provisional Order confirmed); Report to lie upon the Table.

Bill, as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (WIRRAL JOINT HOSPITAL DISTRICT) BILL.

Reported, with Amendments (Provisional order confirmed); Report to lie upon the Table.

Bill, as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (ROCHESTER, CHATHAM, AND GILLINGHAM JOINT SEWERAGE DISTRICT) BILL.

Reported, with Amendments (Provisional Order confirmed); Report to lie upon the Table.

Bill, as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

AIRE AND CALDER NAVIGATION BILL.

Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

GOVERNMENT OF CEYLON.

4.0 p.m.

Brigadier-General Sir HENRY CROFT: I beg to move:
That this House, in view of the results of democratic government in Ceylon, is of opinion that a Parliamentary commission should be appointed to proceed to that island to report upon the working of the Constitution.
The attention of Parliament and the electorate as a whole for very many years has rarely been called to the great questions affecting the fortunes of the Crown Colonies and Protectorates of this country, although I think it will be generally agreed that those countries are as much the concern of Members of this House as the counties of England, Scotland and Wales as long as we are responsible for their government. I think it can be said that in all the history of those territories we have very little to make us ashamed, and that, if you take the sum total of achievement, we can be immensely proud. To-day, when we see deliberately, and, I am afraid, in many cases permanently, our goods excluded from foreign countries, it becomes vital that we should make it our concern to preserve our trade as far as possible within the countries of the British Empire, from which we draw such an immense income, to sustain us in this country, from the invested wealth, and without which, taking the Empire as a whole, we should find our exports decreased by something like 50 per cent. The Crown Colonies and Protectorates offer the greatest scope, if we are wise, for trade expansion, for in those countries we still have some say.
I make no apology, therefore, for calling attention to the government of Ceylon on a private Members' day, when we can give a free Vote in the House, without any influence from the party Whips, and declare our views. When we come to look at the affairs of Ceylon, I think it will be agreed that they are a startling lesson in the failure of democratic government planted on unsuitable soils, and a warning to any further experiment which may be made in that direction. If I may, I will very briefly refer to the history of Ceylon, because I think it helps in understanding the situation. The ancient kingdom of Lanka was existing at least 500 B.C., and at that time there was
a large civilisation in that country of people who had migrated from India, and who had settled in what is now known as Ceylon. Invasions from Malabar, civil war, famine and pestilence reduced the population, which continually declined in wealth, spirit and numbers. The result was that in 1505, when Portuguese sea-power was something to be reckoned with, the Portuguese seized the sea-ports of Ceylon, and, later on, in 1656, the Dutch routed the Portuguese, and themselves occupied all the coastal regions. It was in 1796 that British sea-power—we were then at war with the Dutch—drove them out of the coastal areas, and we occupied those ports. All this time the kingdom of Kandy had continued in the interior, and in 1815 the king was deposed by Kandyan chiefs, with the result that the whole Colony passed under British rule.
What has been the history of Ceylon in the 137 years since the British occupation? We found a people who were nerveless, who were poor, who were famine-stricken, unhealthy and gradually dying out. There were only 800,000 inhabitants when we went there. Under British rule, the population has multiplied nearly seven times, and there is now a population of 5,300,000 souls. Since our occupation, I think we may claim that the Colony has reached a state of prosperity which is probably unequalled in any similar community in the world. As long as Ceylon was administered by the Governor responsible only to the Secretary of State, all went well; but in 1920, the official majority in the Legislature was replaced by a majority of elected members, together with certain members nominated by the Governor, and it is well known that the elected representatives were not too helpful. In 1931, following the report of the Special Commission, presided over by the Noble Lord, Lord Donoughmore, a constitution was framed which, according to their report, was necessary because of the failure of the Ceylonese "to act as co-partners with the Government nominated members." Personally, I should have thought it was poor grounds for handing over the Government to those who had failed to co-operate with the nominated members. However, the Commission went forward with their recommendations, and they discussed in the report the obvious alternative, which was
a reversion to Crown Colony government. Of this alternative the report said:
It would not seem the policy of justice or statesmanship to have recourse to such a step unless and until the inhabitants of Ceylon had manifestly failed to avail themselves of the chance of successfully managing their own affairs.
That has a familiar sort of ring about it in these days. It is for this reason that I want this House to make inquiry whether the Ceylonese have or have not
failed to avail themselves of the chance of successfully managing their own affairs.
Apparently the Commission, from those words, did not rule out the possibility of Crown Colony restoration, if the new constitution failed. I know there are those who say, "You cannot go back." If you applied that way of looking at things to big business concerns I think you would find that many of them to-day would be in Queer Street. They have very frequently to go back on great experiments which have been made. After all, the French in Syria, after establishing democratic government, had to go back because democracy abused the gift, and recently in Newfoundland, the oldest Colony of the British Empire, with the free will of the people, we have, for the time being, at any rate, gone back. I think if we look round we shall see that most of the countries of Europe have actually gone back. That is not necessarily a good thing—I am not arguing that; it would be out of order if I did—but I think it is conclusive proof that even in the old democracies of Europe, if a Government is considered to be inefficient, the people do consent occasionally to replace the governmental machinery.
The new constitution in Ceylon came into force in 1931. We were hardly aware in this House what was happening. It all took place under Order in Council. Democracy took charge like a thief in the night. We threw our burden of responsibility upon this great mass of illiterate population of Sinhalese Burghers, Tamils, Malays and Moors, with their mixed religions—Buddhists, Hindus, Christians and Moslems. Although we know nothing about it, unless we happen to read a book in the Library, we granted almost the widest possible franchise. Every youth of the age of 21, even the extreme savages in
the jungle, were granted the vote, as were all women of the age of 30. In July, 1931, the State Council was set up with both legislative and executive functions. The Council consists of three official members who have no votes, eight nominated members and 50 members elected by this wide electorate. The ministers are chosen from the chairmen of committees, who, in turn, are elected by secret ballot by the committees themselves, and they form the Government, together with the three official members. Of the 50 elected members, only two—I have heard them described as one and a half—are actually British, and out of the whole Council of 61, there are only six British representatives with power to vote. Abdication is, therefore, fairly complete in the government of a country which was rescued from ruin by British administration, and whose prosperity, wealth and happiness are entirely due to British capital and British enterprise.
Thus was our power in Ceylon surrendered by Order in Council, but I am certain that there were people at that day who said, "Do not worry over-much, because there are such admirable safeguards in this constitution. The Governor is left with his power of veto." When I read the White Paper of that day, I see that it says:
The reserve powers will represent one form of safeguard which will operate if and when the principles of the constitution should be infringed.
As I will show, the reserve powers and the Governor's veto have been so frequently invoked, that the situation has become Gilbertian, if it were not so tragic. Instead of getting on with their job, we find members indulging in wasteful controversy, and spending much of their time baiting their Governor and making every anti-British proposal they can think of. In fact, the "Times" correspondent, a year after the constitution had started, described the Sinhalese as being a political philanderer devoid of constructive thought. Within two days the Governor had to use his powers of certification no fewer than four times.
I cannot, in the short time available, give the full story, but I want to emphasise two or three main facts. First of all, I know that it is generally felt, especially on those benches, that if only
you give some form of popular government, immediately gratitude wells up in the hearts of all the people involved. I think that almost the first measure brought before the Council was one which sought to deprive the Governor of all travelling allowances in the Colony. It was not presumed desirable that the King's representative should visit the centres of the Island. He was, according to their idea, to be marooned in Colombo. This outrageous proposal, for such I may term it, was only lost by one vote.
Then let us come to the question of public morality. The State Council proceeded, with very great energy, to pass a measure suspending all judgment summonses for bankruptcy. Banks, credit institutions and traders, of course, would be unable to collect monies due to them, and the whole credit system of the country would be brought to a standstill, and all trade ruined. Enthusiasm for that Measure is, I am told, attributed to the fact that several Members of Parliament thought it was an admirable way of relieving themselves of some of their more pressing financial obligations, more especially as, I believe, there is a penalty of £500 if a bankrupt remains a member of that chamber. On one occasion the "Fiscal's Peons," as they are called, drew themselves up outside the chamber, and there was quite a remarkable scene; but I believe the law which obtains still in that Colony is Roman-Dutch, and that after six p.m. you cannot arrest a man for debt, with the result that the Legislature softly and silently faded away when dusk came. Anyhow, although this Bill was received with such enthusiasm, the Governor had to refuse to certify it. He was not prepared to see the trade of the Colony brought to a standstill.
The State Council next imposed higher taxation upon British-owned businesses than on native-owned, 12 per cent. on sterling companies and 10 per cent. on rupee companies. If I might quote further from the special correspondent of the "Times," the anti-British spirit had developed. Then, again the council refused to implement the decisions of Ottawa, standing out in splendid isolation in the whole Empire against economic union. In addition to all this British officials in the various
departments were reduced in number by 142, out of 700, in the first two and a-half years. I understand the reduction is still greater now. A simple calculation will convince Members of this House that at that rate the Colony will, in a few years' time, be rid of all British officials. I am told that in some few years' time there will certainly not be more than four white police officers left in the Colony. It is only fair to say that only a few of the various officials to whom I have referred have been actually "axed," but there is no future for the white man in Ceylon, as things are at present. He is getting out as and when he can, because he sees there is no chance for him owing to the corruption, incompetence and racial animosity which exists. It is axiomatic of the faith of all abdicationists that you have only to make a generous gift of self-government, and contentment will reign where previously there was discontent. What are the facts in Ceylon? Not content with baiting the Governor and making the life of European officials and planters very difficult, if not almost unbearable, the State Council, practically from the day when the Constitution was signed, has made ever-increasing demands for widening the powers and ending of British rule. Here is the programme, which was carried as lately as November, 1933, by 34 votes to 15, on the Motion of the Leader of the House:

"(a) The removal of the British officers of State and their substitution by Ministers and Executive Committees of the Council.
(b) The strengthening of the position of the Board of Ministers by enabling them to initiate and carry out their financial policies.
(c) Alteration in the method of election of Ministers.
(d) The reconstruction of the Public Service Commission.
(e) The deletion of the provision for obtaining the prior sanction of the Governor in the case of Bills, Motions, Resolutions, or Votes affecting officers in the public service.
(f) The curtailment of the special powers of the Governor."

That, in other words, is the elimination of all safeguards; so we have not brought peace by yielding. As ever in the East, weakness is merely construed as fear, and certain people are convinced that "Your day is done and you will yield to any pressure"; or, if I might quote an Eastern proverb, "A dog on the run can safely be kicked."
The council having passed those Resolutions, which I need hardly say were not assented to by the Governor, proposed to send a deputation to press their case, at the expense of the Colony. I am glad to say the Secretary of State refused to countenance such a proceeding. One word with regard to how the people have fared under this Constitution. I do not think I am exaggerating when I say that the handling of finance has been a disgrace. The last Budget introduced was brought before the Chancellor three months after the allotted time, and then it was discovered that there was a deficit of £6,500,000. Sir Don Jayatilaka then submitted proposals, including the following:

"(1) No provision during the year for the payment of commuted pensions;
(2) Passages and holiday warrant grants for British officers reduced and leave passage warrants allowed every five years instead of every four years."

That was an attack on the whole European standard. Ministers announced that unless these proposals were accepted they would, regretfully no doubt, have to tell the Governor that they must resign. These proposals were refused by the Governor, as obviously they had to be. Another way of balancing the Budget was this. It sounds very simple, and we might really imitate the idea in this House. Raids were made on the Railway Reserve Fund and upon the Electricity Department Depreciation Fund in order to balance the Budget. Sir William Woods, the Financial Secretary, moved on 25th February, 1932—I am not giving all these incidents in chronological order, because there are different proposals under different heads—an ordinance to enable a temporary levy to be imposed on salaries and wages of persons employed in the public service—our old friend the "cuts," which were adopted in nearly every other country in the world. This was negatived by the Council. I think they felt it personally. I feel that I need give only one more instance of the treatment serious matters received in the Assembly by pointing out that the first reading of the Income Tax Bill of 1932 was carried by 29 votes to 16, a very substantial majority, and that on the very next day the second reading was lost by 29 votes to 16. Surely that is not the action of responsible people, and on that occasion the Governor felt entitled to express his
severe disappointment that the Council should have disregarded his wishes. He declared the Title Clause and Clause 5 to be of paramount importance, which meant, of course, that they had to be passed into law.
One word with regard to bribery. Charges were made in the "Ceylon Independent" newspaper which, in the words of Mr. Perera in the Chamber, made
the vilest aspersions against the honour and integrity of Members of this House.
That paper published an interview with Sir Don Jayatilaka, concerning which Mr. Perera stated:
If the hon. Leader of the House had evidence …. he should have communicated with the police.
Sir Don Jayatilaka replied:
The interview referred to was in connection with attempts which were made to influence Members of the House by corrupt means. He himself had heard that such attempts were being made; in fact, some Members had told him of such attempts. But he had no reason to believe that such attempts had succeeded.
The concluding portion of his statement said:
but I accepted and approved the statement that some Members have succumbed to the temptation.
Opinion in the Colony—outside the Chamber—would appear to bear out the opinion expressed in the concluding remarks of the Leader of the House. I am deliberately refraining from giving the views of substantial British men in the Colony whom I have met. Every word I am saying is taken from the Official Debates, or from the summary of the Official Debates in the Journal of the Parliaments of the Empire, which I have studied with great care. I want to say at once that there is nothing very new in this question of bribery because, after all, it is not condemned in many quarters in the East. A man who does not give a bribe or accept one is frequently regarded as somewhat of a fool. I myself had an experience when I was interested in a quite big concern in Bengal and had to go through all the details. I was staggered to find that there were, quite definitely, in the accounts indications that money had to be paid to various middlemen for the handling of the goods. When I made inquiry I was told that we could not sell anything of that description without this
oiling of the wheels. It is not considered to be a crime at all in the East, it is custom, and we have to face it; and that is why it has always appeared to me that any democratic form of government must be so difficult. One has only to refer to the word "dastur," and everyone will know what is meant.
I come to the question of the contentment of the masses in Ceylon and would refer to the growth of crime since law and order increasingly passed from British hands. On 18th August, 1933, Mr. Subramaniam, the deputy chairman of committees, used these words:
Ceylon beats the record for crime when compared to other countries in the East or elsewhere.
Can this be possible, people will say, when democracy has taken hold? In 1930 the total number of cases of crime in the Colony was 9,689, and in 1932 10,484. Offences against the State, which in 1930 numbered 65, had risen in 1932 to 103. Well may Mr. Subramaniam declare, in reference to what he called "the detested Donoughmore Constitution" that he questioned
the suitability of improving institutions among a people the majority of whom, in point of education, mould of mind and habits of life, were unable to appreciate them.
So much for democracy in a country populated by Buddhists, Hindus, and Moslems, so many of whom are absolutely without any education whatsoever.
Lastly, one word with regard to trade. We have always been assured that if self-government is given in increasing measure trade will expand as the flag is lowered. Ceylon used to be a very great purchaser of British goods. It is a remarkable fact that no steps whatever were taken in this Constitution to preserve trade between Ceylon and Great Britain. The attitude which was taken appears to have been: "Oh, well, let the thing go." In 1932 Ceylon purchased only 19 per cent. of her imports from Britain and 33.35 per cent. from foreign countries, leaving a substantial balance to be obtained from British Possessions, including her near neighbour India. Britain is by far the best customer of Ceylon, taking in that year 49.27 per cent. of Ceylon's total exports, as against 27.67 per cent. sent to foreign countries and 23 per cent. to other
British Possessions, including India. It will be seen that the balance of trade is now very much against us. In 1933, the figures for which year came into my hands only this morning, the balance is something like four to one against us.
Other hon. Members are going to refer to Lancashire's trade. Ceylon used to be a very good customer of Lancashire. In 1913 Ceylon purchased no less than 73 per cent. of her total of piece goods from Great Britain. In 1931 the figure had fallen to 29 per cent. In that year Japan went right ahead, doing 43 per cent. of the total trade, going to the first place. I think I am right in saying that in 1933 Japan supplied more than double the quantity in 1930 and over 60 per cent. of the total imports going into that Colony. The official report says the position of British trade is grave indeed, because Lancashire looks like being absolutely wiped out, except in the finest class of cotton exports. Yet the Minister in the Ceylon Chamber declared that it has been decided not to give a preference to articles like cotton, for the reason that they found it would be an intolerable burden to the poor—regardless of the fact that the poor had had practically all their goods from Lancashire in the past, and also of the fact that the British consumption of Ceylon products is saving the poor of Ceylon from disaster.
British capital, which represents from 70 to 80 per cent. of the capital in Ceylon, is providing employment for the vast majority of her people. Is it surprising that councillors should have said in the Ceylon Legislature that capital is leaving the country, and that no further capital is coming in. The dominant party in Ceylon is what is known as Congress, corresponding somewhat to a Congress in another place. The Chairman of Congress in Ceylon declared that he would like to see every European on the island put on board a ship and sunk at sea. So much for the good will engendered by our surrender. Ceylon was once a shining example of British rule. To-day I submit that it is our shame and humiliation.
Why are we engaged in all these surrenders? First of all was Ireland, with results painfully visible to-day. Then we tried to get out of Egypt, but the Lord hardened the hearts of the Egyptians,
and they would not let us go, and that is the only reason why we are still there. We scuttled from Iraq, and in a month or two the appalling massacre of Assyrian Christians took place. We have had to turn things upside down again in Malta. We have almost destroyed Ceylon, and now I am told that one or two of these abdicationists have their eagle eye upon Fiji. Since the War, the British Government, at the least sign of any agitation, have been ready to abandon our own people in the territories overseas, to betray our trust to the masses in those countries, and to sacrifice minorities. Some in this House might say, speaking with the full national flavour: "Do not despair. At least for two or three years we shall not give up the Isle of Wight."
As a nation, have we lost all backbone? What right have we to give up the Empire for which our fathers made such immense sacrifices in the days gone by? What right have we to shed territories without any mandate from the people who are the possessors of those territories? Why should we yield to the first Asiatic tub-thumper who wishes to deprive us of our birthright? We are considering constitutional changes in regard to another country in the East. I suggest that it would be wise and statesmanlike now not to wait, influenced by the fatal idea that by waiting to see you can get over difficulties, but that forthwith a commission should travel to Ceylon to inquire into the government. Ceylon is comparable with India in its illiteracy, its inexperience, its mixed races and religions, although so much more easy to handle and so much more compact that it has only one-seventieth of its population. It would be very much in the interests of our country and of the Empire that a commission should proceed to Ceylon, in order to inquire whether we have not committed a grave blunder in that island, and before we risk setting in motion a perfect democratic avalanche which may come crashing down and overwhelm our Indian Empire.

4.35 p.m.

Lieut.-Commander AGNEW: I beg to second the Motion.
May I first offer a word of congratulation to the hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft), who has brought forward the Motion and has moved it with such very telling reason. It is almost a year ago to a day that he
brought forward a Motion upon the subject of constitutional changes in the great sub-continent of India.

Wing-Commander JAMES: Is it in order for hon. Members to range over India in this discussion?

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: He was not ranging at all.

Mr. SPEAKER: I have hardly had time to hear whether the hon. and gallant Member for Camborne (Lieut.-Commander Agnew) is ranging over India.

Lieut.-Commander AGNEW: I would like to explain to the hon. and gallant Member for Wellingborough (Wing-Commander James) that I was only referring to a former Parliamentary success of the hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth, and it had no special reference to the subject of India. I was going to say that the Island of Ceylon is many times smaller than India, and it has already been the subject of constitutional change. The problem of its good government raises principles which are equally important with those of India, and which are equally proper for discussion by the House of Commons. The hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth has given us a very moving picture of conditions of all kinds in Ceylon, and the way in which those conditions have very definitely changed for the worse since the inception of the constitution of 1931.
There are only one or two points left for me to refer to in supplementing what he has said, and one is in regard to the commercial position which the State Council of Ceylon have elected of their own accord to take up within the Empire. Perhaps I should have said the position that they have elected not to take up. Many of us will recollect the glow of satisfaction that was upon the countenance of the Secretary of State for the Colonies—who we all hope will have a speedy recovery—when he came back with his colleagues from Ottawa, and announced that he had been able to achieve the most far-reaching results for the Crown Colonies, which it had been his special charge to represent. Soon we began to notice that there was an exception, that there was a flaw in the picture, and that he was not able to bring to maturity what seemed a certainty when he left Ottawa. Questions have been asked in this House as to whether the
Ceylon Government intended to implement the Ottawa Agreements. I recollect that in July last the Secretary of State for the Colonies, in answer to a question, replied:
The Governor of Ceylon informs me that his Ministers are still considering the possibility of granting further preferences to Empire goods, but he is at present unable to state that they will take the necessary steps within any definite period, or that the State Council of Ceylon would agree to any proposals which they may make."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th July, 1933; col. 2612, Vol. 280.]
There is in that a non possumus and unwilling attitude on the part of the State Council to take any action. The Constitution passed in 1931 provides for remedies in a state of affairs like that. I ask the indulgence of the House if I remind hon. Members what is the specific remedy provided for a case of this kind. It is contained in Clause 22 of the Order-in-Council of 1931, and is as follows:

"(a) it shall be lawful for any Officer of State, acting by the authority and under the instructions of the Governor, to propose any such Bill, motion, resolution or vote to the Council and the same shall have priority over all other business of the Council;
"(b) The Governor may declare that any such Bill, or any part of any such Bill or any such motion, resolution, or vote is of paramount importance or is essential to give effect to the provisions of this Order, and thereupon such Bill, part of a Bill, motion, resolution, or vote shall have effect as if it had been passed by the Council."

Clearly we there have a safeguard. Why is this safeguard not being used? We know that the Secretary of State for the Colonies is only too anxious to have this final link in the chain of his section of the Ottawa Agreements completed. He has made statements and given assurances in this House that he is doing all that he can to have the position put right. Can it be that the Governor, although invested with these powers and safeguards, deems it unstatesmanlike to use them? Can it be that he thinks that if he puts forward his power of initiation of legislation under this "paramount" Clause, it would precipitate a crisis in the island which, if it were thoroughly explored and ventilated before the public of Ceylon, might show to the people of Ceylon that their State councillors were not their true servants? I can only think that there must be some reason of that kind, as the cause of this failure to take
action, whether it be action under the Constitution of Ceylon or by the Colonial Office in London, to explain why the agreements are not implemented.
The hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth dwelt upon the growth of anti-British feeling in the island, and he gave us some striking instances, which I do not propose to supplement, of the way in which that anti-British feeling is operating. It is worth while mentioning that several people familiar with the island, in which some of them have been on plantations, have said that they are unwilling to send their own sons there to take up positions, so bad do they consider the state of affairs in the island. They would rather sacrifice or sell out in the country in which they have invested capital and which they have built up over a great many years, in order to put those who follow them into some other perhaps humbler and less lucrative position in this country.
The position in business, trade or commerce in the island is bad, but in the administrative services it is even worse. The State councilors and the chairmen of the executive committees, who are in fact the Governor's Ministers, show, according to reports that I have received, a veiled insolence towards tried and trusted servants of the old Ceylon Civil Service. I cannot give any definite and specific instance now, and I would only say that I have seen literature which leads me to take that view. I have seen none to contradict it. It was significant that last September the Chief Secretary in the State Council said that for the last two years more than 150 officers had retired, which was equal to 22 per cent. of the whole Service. Also 103 officers drawing salaries of over £600 a year have retired, or have given notice of their intention to retire, under the provisions of the Order-in-Council. If further evidence were wanted, we had it from the mouth of the Secretary of State himself, when, in answer to a question in this House on the 3rd May, speaking of the number of retirements of British employés from the Government service, he gave the following figures: 1928, 17; 1929, 16; 1930, 12. In 1931, during the latter part of which year the Constitution was introduced, 29 officers retired, and in 1932 the number was 62. That must show that there is grave dissatisfaction with the way in which the administrative ser-
vices of Ceylon are being carried on, and it must show that all those pinpricks are only having the effect of making the Ceylonese and the British, whose[...] co-operation and partnership is to my mind essential, fail to work together. That can only mean that sooner or later this state of affairs—a dyarchy which is no dyarchy—must come to an end.
In the Donoughmore Commission's Report emphasis was laid on the fact that the Constitution which they proposed, and which was afterwards adopted, might be successful because there were no political parties in Ceylon. The Donoughmore Commission saw, on the one hand, a sort of host of would-be legislators of the type often described in this House as of no fixed views, but only anxious to be good public servants; and this host was supposed to be going to carry out the Constitution as a solid bloc, almost a National Government, behind the officers of State and the Governor. So sure were the Commission in their view that they said in their report, at page 19:
If we survey the political field, we find that there is a complete absence of any party system among the elected representatives of the people.
But, if there is no party system, and if we find now an anti-British feeling expressed in the State Council—the elected body—as I believe all the evidence shows to be the case, how can we hope that there will be any change from that hostile opinion to the British idea? We cannot hope that, if the present Ministry, as I will call it, becomes discredited, the result of a fresh election would be to return another political party anxious to co-operate with the Governor and his advisers. It seems to me that there can be no redress under the present political system, that no swing of the pendulum is possible that could change this apparently hostile bloc, in the case of which, apparently, nationalism has run to its head and judgment gone out; and that some urgent inquiry should be started in order really to investigate these conditions.
I see that there is an Amendment on the Order Paper which suggests that the desire expressed in the Motion is premature—that, when a Constitution has been in operation for 2½ years, it would, on principle, be premature to make any inquiry into its working at all. Before
passing judgment on that question, it might be worth while to repeat once more what have been the historic precedents in the Island of Ceylon itself in regard to changes of Government. I think it would be right to say that our datum line, so to speak, starts in 1815, when "the Kandyan Convention guaranteed to all classes of people the safety of their persons and property, with their civil rights and immunities," and that anything which has taken place as far as British administration is concerned must be dated from that point and must have those principles in mind. In 1833, Executive and Legislative Councils were first set up. There was a change again in 1837, another in 1845, and another in 1889. In 1910, after a lapse of 21 years, there was a further change, and then came a period when a new factor was introduced, and you began to get pressure from bodies and associations to try to demand from the home Government what they would describe as a more generous constitution.
The next move took place in 1920, after the lapse of only 10 years. In December, 1921, when the ink was hardly dry on the paper of that Order in Council, Sir James Pieris, the President of Congress—which is the most important, I will not say political party, but I would call it the party of agitation in the Island, a party which, from all that one reads about it, is similar in name and in character to another party in India—in December, 1921, Sir James Pieris moved in the Legislative Council Amendments to the Constitution, and so strong were the representations that by December, 1923, after a lapse of only three years, a sweeping change was again made in the size and functions of the Legislative Council, and also of the Executive Council. Since 1923 there has been a constant repercussion of fresh agitation for more and more concessions, and, after only eight years, those concessions were given, culminating in the final great concession, the most sweeping one of all, which not only established, on the face of it, an ultra-democratic Constitution, but had great experimental features about it, and, in particular, the feature of government, not by Ministers, but by the chairmen of committees, somewhat on the French model. That was a great experiment in itself, and, in my belief, it has failed. But, if such a great experiment has been
made, I think we are entitled, even after only two and a-half years, with all the signs, which have already been brought out in this Debate, of disquietude, dissatisfaction, and lack of smooth working, to make an inquiry of the kind that only a Parliamentary Commission can make.
I should like, if I may, to dwell for a few moments on the present situation. Unfortunately, the late Governor, Sir Graeme Thomson, died suddenly last year, but since then the Island has been fortunate in securing the services of one of the most experienced Colonial civil servants in the service, a man with a brilliant record of success both in the Colony of Hong Kong and later in the island of Jamaica, and who was for a short time in Cyprus. He has now gone to take up what was his old charge, the government of Ceylon, after having been Colonial Secretary there in 1913. All hon. Members in the House will appreciate that a Governor is always free at any time to make a report back to the Home country, both on administrative affairs and also on the working of the Constitution. But a Governor is not free to make a report back so that that report will be available to all people in this country who may wish to take an interest in it. Any report that he makes only goes to the Colonial Office, and it may there be deposited in a pigeon-hole until such time as the Secretary of State, with his many preoccupations, has time to deal with it. A Parliamentary Commission, however, which could go out and find the actual facts, would be able to present those facts to the Parliament of this country, and Members both of another place and of this House would then have the opportunity, which they ought to have, of judging of the working of this experimental Constitution. If we do not keep ourselves informed of constitutional experiments and their working we are not able to judge them and we are not exercising that vigilance which is the price of Empire. If we do not watch, it will avail us nothing merely to pray.

Mr. SPEAKER: Lieut.-Colonel Sandeman Allen.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Does your calling upon the hon. and gallant Member mean that my Amendment—in line 1, to leave out "in view of the results of
democratic government in Ceylon"—is ruled out of order?

Mr. SPEAKER: I select the other one.

4.57 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel SANDEMAN ALLEN: I beg to move, in line 1, to leave out from "the" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
fact that the present constitution in Ceylon, which was based on the Report of a special commission appointed in 1927 by the then Secretary of State for the Colonies, did not come into force until July, 1931, is of the opinion that an insufficient period of time has elapsed in which to judge of the success of its operation, and therefore considers that it would be premature to appoint a Parliamentary Commission to proceed to the island to report upon its working.
I would point out that this Amendment merely says that the House considers that it would be premature to appoint a Parliamentary Commission. It does not rule out the appointment of a Parliamentary Commission in the future, nor does it say that at some time or other it may not be necessary to appoint a Parliamentary Commission; but I submit to the House that the moment is not opportune, and that it is indeed premature to act in any sudden manner such as that proposed in the Motion. A Parliamentary Commission is a serious matter. The mover of the Motion spoke to the House as if we were abandoning everything. He quoted an Eastern proverb which says that a dog on the run is safe to be kicked, the suggestion being that we were on the run; and he asked, what right have we to shed territories? This Amendment does not suggest for a moment that we are on the run, or that we are prepared to shed territories, and to try to frighten the House into thinking that we are abandoning one of our prized possessions, is not in my humble opinion, the way to go about this matter. I see no reason whatever for it at this moment. In getting together my notes for this speech, I, too, consulted the encyclopaedia, but I do not propose to give the history which was much better given by my hon. and gallant Friend. I would, however, point out to him that, when he tries to draw an analogy between literacy in India and in Ceylon, the difference is very considerably in favour of Ceylon.

Sir H. CROFT: I admit that.

Lieut.-Colonel SANDEMAN ALLEN: The whole Government of Ceylon is on a far stronger basis than was the Government previous to July, 1931. I am certain that my hon. and gallant Friend—indeed, he admitted it—does not want to return to the conditions previous to 1931. Such a return would be fatal. It would not improve the position of the Governor, nor would it facilitate in any way the passing of Measures which possibly are not at the moment popular. Any alteration that the hon. Baronet wants would take away freedom from the natives. That would be the result at present while the native population itself is not yet convinced that there has been a failure. They have only had two and a-half years to work the constitution. If you tried to alter it at present, the result would be obstruction on every side. You would have disorders, riots and rebellions, and you would have to put all that down by force, and to introduce force at present for a reason which the public would judge we had brought upon ourselves would not advance the position of our own country in the eyes of the world. Public opinion here would not view such a situation with complacency. It would be madness to try to do it.
The Donoughmore Commission was appointed by a Conservative Government, of which the hon. Baronet was a supporter, in 1927, and it was as a result of the evidence that they collected that the present constitution was brought into being. The strongest feature of the previous constitution was the divorce of responsibility from power. The Governor was responsible, but he could only make laws and levy taxes with the advice and consent of the Legislature, and an administrative impasse had been reached. These recommendations were accepted by the British Government and by the Legislature of Ceylon, and the present constitution came into being. The Governor has to-day infinitely stronger powers than he had previously. The hon. Baronet rather slurred over some of the safeguards and did not make them clear. The three Government Departments in charge of officers of the State are: Public Services, in charge of the Chief Secretary; Justice, Legal Matters and Election Matters, in charge of the Attorney-General; and Treasury, Customs and Stores, in charge a the Financial Secretary. Those gentlemen are not allowed to vote, but they
are in charge of those Departments and are allowed to speak upon them in the Council. Everything that the Council does is subject to the consent of the Government. If there is a vote of no confidence, the Governor dissolves the Council.
The hon. Baronet spoke about the difficulty that white men were having in holding their official posts. All these appointments and promotions are under the control of the Government and not of the Council. That is a very strong safeguard. All matters affecting salaries and conditions of service are subject to his consent. The safeguards are very strong, and it cannot be argued that pensions or retirements or appointments are in any way jeopardised by the present Constitution. Pensions previously granted have been specially secured, so that no trouble in that line can be expected. The Governor can refuse assent or can reserve it for the signification of His Majesty's pleasure to any Measure. He can also, if necessary, give effect, notwithstanding the refusal of the State Council, to any legislation if he declares that it is of paramount importance, or he can take control of any Department or service. That is another thing that is very strong. He has not had to do that yet.
This administration came into being in July, 1931. What a time of difficulty for any Government to take the reigns of office. This one had courage and did it, though some members of the Government then in power took the chance to abdicate instead of carrying on. It was a dreadful time for anyone to take charge of the affairs of the country—a time of financial stress and retrenchment. The hon. Baronet, in talking about trade, presented the 1932 figures to the House, possibly one of the worst trade years there has been in the world for a century. When he gave those figures and pointed out that there was an adverse balance against this country, he omitted to include in them the invisible balance, which must be very large indeed—all pensions paid in this country. All the dividends from tea shares which are sent over to this country are invisible assets—part of the invisible trade balance. The hon. Baronet merely gave us the visible balance, whereas the invisible balance is one of the outstanding features of their trade with us.
In ordinary times two and a-half years is too short a time to form a balanced
judgment. It is doubly too short in such difficult times as those through which we have just passed. Very bad troubles have arisen, but the Governor has only had to use his reserved powers six times in all and each case has been budgetary. In March, 1932, and in March, 1933, at the time of the Budget, he had to bring in his reserved powers when they tried to pass rather nonsensical financial measures from lack of experience. With more experience I think the Ceylon Government will assume some sort of shape. It is far too early to form any judgment at all. We regret deeply the passing of Sir Graeme Thomson, and the House undoubtedly misses the opportunity of getting his valuable advice on this matter. He was in power during the most vital period in the history of the island. There are undoubtedly some features which will need amendment in the future, but at present there is not sufficient experience to judge the form or the scope of the amendments nor how they should be approached. A Parliamentary Commission is not the method to employ. If a Parliamentary Commission was sent out, it would immediately excite the hopes of the protagonists of complete self government. That is the thing that is farthest away from the hon. Baronet's mind. I am convinced that he does not want to give Ceylon self government, but that is what would happen if we sent out a Parliamentary Commission. There would be tremendous propaganda set to work immediately and more harm would be done than ever. The Secretary of State has already refused to give self government, and it does not need a Parliamentary Commission to endorse his recommendation. I submit that my Amendment is a reasonable one. Time is necessary in order to get a really balanced judgment and to find out exactly what is wanted, and then, if we find that things are continuing to go in a way which calls for amendment, will be the time when we might have to send out a Parliamentary Commission. My Amendment does not preclude the sending out of a Parliamentary Commission in the future. It merely says that the time is not ripe at present.

5.12 p.m.

Dr. McLEAN: I beg to second the Amendment.
The suggestion in the Motion is to set up a Parliamentary Commission to report upon the working of the Constitution. This machine of Government has only been working since July, 1931, and it is much too soon to judge of the results. I can tell the House from personal experience that these Commissions cause great disturbance locally in the administration, and in my opinion they are only justified if there have been grave occurrences and the machine has more or less broken down. In the absence of grave reasons—and there do not appear to be grave reasons in this case—the sending of a Commission might be interpreted as an unfair attempt to change our policy. We have given these people a machine of government, and it is up to us to see that it is given a fair chance to work. To take it away, unless for grave reasons, would be a blow to British prestige and to our reputation for justice, upon which the Oriental relies with very great faith. It is well to remind ourselves that we are dealing with the doings of Orientals and with the Oriental mind. It is desirable to conjure up the background of that rather fascinating picture which these things mean. It is a background very different from our own in many ways.
Having spent all my official life in contact with orientals, in their education, in central and local government, and in public works, and having had to deal with them as my subordinates and also as my superiors, I can say that, as a result of that experience, it is very dangerous to dogmatise and to make general statements. However, I will venture to make one or two remarks which, I hope, will help our deliberation. It is very difficult to say what an oriental thinks about a new development and how he sees it, but one fact stands out clearly. He has a touching faith in our educational and parliamentary institutions. He wants to have the same things for himself, because he believes, rightly or wrongly, that our greatness as a nation depends upon these things. Nothing will convince him otherwise, as long as we continue to use them ourselves.
My early experience in establishing local government among orientals is not without some interest. I recall a case of a municipality being created in a large town, where a native official had formally held sway alone. Under the new regime
he became like a Mayor, and he presided at a meeting of the council which I attended. In the course of the proceedings, the councillors criticised some of the proposals of the chairman rather freely, as the rules of the democratic game permit. At this he lost his temper, and, seizing his ink pot, threw it on to the floor and roundly abused the councillors. Remembering the rules, he pulled himself together and the meeting proceeded, and I was able to report that the machine was working. In this case the reaction seemed to be that dignity had suffered because of the criticisms that were offered, and dignity is a matter of great value to the oriental. For example, an elderly gentleman playing tennis or golf, is to him a very undignified spectacle, and he would probably think much the same when humble back benchers offer rude remarks to the Olympians who sit on the Front Bench in this House. In Ceylon it was natural that the legislators of the new State Council would want to try their power of voting and criticising in the democratic manner. They knew that the Governor could stop any nonsense, but they wanted to see him do it. It is rather like the thrill which many of us experience when, for the first time, we ignore the Whip and walk into the wrong Lobby.
The surprising thing in Ceylon is that there has been no abuse of power. As we have heard, only a few cases of difficulty have arisen, and those affected pay and personnel, which is a matter of perennial interest. There appears to be no evidence that Ceylon has failed to try to work the Constitution, or that the people are dissatisfied. Some are pressing for a further measure of self-government, but we should not forget that the oriental on principle always asks for more than he knows he will get, or that he will accept. If you pay a dealer without question the sum he asks for an article, you have created a most unhappy man who feels that he has not made the most of the opportunity of a fool sent to him by a merciful providence. We have heard to-day of the personal conduct of some of the legislators, but I wish to confine myself more to the economic situation and to the working of the machine. In judging these councillors, I would beg of the House to remember that the code of morals in the East and the ideas of morality are
different from ours in many ways. For example, they can never understand why we permit our wives to be waltzed around the room in the arms of other men.
Turning to the economic aspects of the question, and before considering Ceylon in detail, it might be useful to examine the economic background of the Colonial Empire in its relation to the Dominions and to the United Kingdom as an Empire unit. This is the great principle of Empire economic unity which most of us in this House, I think, hold as our economic ideal. Our Government has a special responsibility with regard to the Colonial Empire, because we are in the position of trustees for all these more or less dependent peoples. The Colonial Empire has an area greater than that of India and a population nearly equal to that of all the Dominions and the United Kingdom taken together, under some 50 separate Governments scattered over the world, mainly in the tropical and subtropical zones. The records show that it was on this economic and moral background that the Secretary of State put forward with success the claims of the Colonial Empire at Ottawa, and gained such valuable preferences from all the Dominions for all the Colonies.

Sir NAIRNE STEWART SANDEMAN: Except Ceylon.

Dr. McLEAN: I think that it is on the same background that the Secretary of State is now preparing a survey of production and trade development in the Colonies, so as to secure development along the lines which are most economic and profitable to each Colony, namely, a planned development. It is interesting to observe that Empire economic unity embodies the principle of triangular trade, and this principle is clearly shown to be in operation in the Colonial Empire. Visualise the United Kingdom, the West Indies and Canada, connected by a great triangular trade route.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Captain Bourne): I must remind the hon. Member that the Motion and the Amendment before the House are both limited to Ceylon.

Dr. McLEAN: Yes, Sir, I bow to your Ruling. I was coming to the point that Ceylon is part of this triangle. I wish to show that it is in the centre of triangular trade, and I hope that I am in order in
referring to that matter. I wish to say, if I may, that without triangular trade in the Colonial Empire it is not apparent how the trade of the Dominions, which are industrialised, can be fully developed. I am not suggesting, of course, that the Empire would be developed or held together merely by a balance of trade, but I submit that it would materially be helped by aiming at that result. Taking the cold economic view, conditions to-day are such that it would not pay any of our Colonies, or the Dominions, for that matter, to cut themselves adrift economically, and orientals such as the Ceylonese have a very good appreciation of where their economic interests lie. Let us not forget that the Dominions and Colonies gave preferences to us before we were in the position to do so to them.
It is useful to recall, in returning to the case of Ceylon, that we are dealing with an and mainly an oriental population of 5,500,000. Two-thirds of these are engaged in agriculture, and the remainder in trade and industry. The annual Budget amounts to about £6,500,000. Ceylon is interested in three great trade triangles—the United Kingdom, India and Ceylon; the United Kingdom, Australia and Ceylon; and India, Australia and Ceylon. On examining the trade situation of Ceylon from the year 1932 with a view to finding out how Ceylon is playing her part in Empire trade as a whole, and especially with regard to triangular trade, I find the following figures. The total value of imports from Empire countries in 1932 was £9,800,000, and exports to Empire countries from Ceylon amounted to £9,000,000. That shows that Ceylon is playing more than her part in the Empire. She is taking more from the Empire than she is exporting. It is of interest to note that the value of the imports from foreign countries, including Japan, in 1932, was £4,900,000, whereas the exports to foreign countries amounted to £3,490,000. I ask the House to observe that this trade with foreign countries is just about half the volume of the trade with the Empire. The recent intensive Japanese competition in textiles, which had a very serious effect upon all the Colonies, does not seem to have increased in 1933 as compared with
1932 in Ceylon. Here are the figures. In 1932, 40,370,000 yards of the value of £407,000, and in 1933, 41,430,000 yards of the value of £380,000. That shows that there has been no increase in trade with Japan. I submit that no practical tariff preference to us from Ceylon could have solved this problem, which must be done on an Empire or even a world basis.
Considering the direct trade between the United Kingdom and Ceylon, we find that in 1932 the value of imports into Ceylon from the United Kingdom was £2,780,000 and of exports from Ceylon to the United Kingdom £6,250,000. It is useful to observe that the relative proportion is not widely dissimilar from that of our trade with the Empire as a whole, which is as two to three exports to imports. It is a very satisfactory situation, and I say that Ceylon is certainly playing her part in Empire trade. We must not forget that Ceylon recently approved, without demur, of the Tea Restriction Ordinance regarding quotas arranged with India, Ceylon and the Dutch East Indies. Nor must we forget that this trade is practically in European hands and is almost entirely a European interest.
I should like to describe the general tariff, which has been referred to rather vaguely. I am trying to give to the House the complete economic picture. Isolated references are of no use. A question of this sort must be studied as a whole. Ceylon's general tariff, as will be seen from the Customs return, is 25 per cent., and there is a 10 per cent. ad valorem preference to the Empire on certain articles. Empire preferences were granted in February, 1933. The principal articles affected by the preference are motor vehicles, machinery, certain iron and steel goods, boots and shoes, chemicals, paper, soap and certain textiles. On examining again the imports and exports we find that the principal imports of Ceylon are from the United Kingdom—cotton piece goods, motor vehicles, rubber tyres and cement; from British India rice, vegetables and coal; from Australia flour, wheat and meal. The principal exports of Ceylon to the United Kingdom are tea and coconuts; to Australia, New Zealand and Canada, principally tea; and to British India, copra and coconut oil. That is the economic trade picture of Ceylon.
I submit that the trade situation of Ceylon from the Empire aspect as well as the United Kingdom aspect is very satisfactory. I also submit that the Constitution is working as smoothly as can be expected, considering the very limited time it has been in action. Until time has elapsed it will be impossible to judge fairly of the value of the Constitution to the people of Ceylon. They might interpret the passing of the Motion as an indication that this House thinks that things are highly unsatisfactory. We in this country still believe that democratic Parliamentary government is the best. That the people of Ceylon continue to share our belief is something to be encouraged. Observing what is happening in other parts of the world they have some reason to be discouraged, and if the Motion were approved I believe it would increase the risk of that discouragement. I therefore hope that the House will approve the Amendment, which I have pleasure in seconding.

5.34 p.m.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: The House ought to be very grateful to the hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft) for bringing forward the Motion, and I am certain that Ceylon will be grateful. The people of Ceylon know me as their friend. I have had a good deal to do with the demi-semi-Constitutions that we have had there. I have been afraid every month for the last year that the Constitution in Ceylon would be suspended without Parliament having anything to do with it. The fact of the matter is that the people of Ceylon and in other parts of the Empire do not realise the great change that has come over not merely the policy of the Colonial Office but the policy of the world as a whole during recent years. Revoking Constitutions and suppressing self-government has spread, is spreading, and is likely to go further. It is nearly five years since the first step was taken in suppressing the Constitution in British Guiana. I think the Labour Government passed that. The next step was the suppression of self-government in Cyprus, to the complete satisfaction of the people of this country, and I think to the satisfaction of the people of Cyprus. The next step was the suppression of self-government in Malta, and the final step was the suppression of self-government in Newfoundland. In emery case it has been found
increasingly easy to abolish the Constitution and get back to an autocratic form of government.
During the past year I have been terrified lest that fate should befall Ceylon unnecessarily, and I value this Debate not merely as a chance of discussing what has been going on in Ceylon but as a warning to the people of Ceylon that they stand in imminent danger of losing the Constitution that they have got. If one-half of what the hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth said is true, and if it is found to be true by the Parliamentary Commission—whether the Motion or the Amendment is carried I understand there will be a Parliamentary Commission before action is taken by the Colonial Office—their Constitution is dead, and they had better know it now. It is absolutely essential that they should wake up to the fact that this change has come about and has proved successful and easy elsewhere and is justified in cases where democracy breaks down. They have to stop it breaking down in Ceylon if they are going to save their liberty.
There are special difficulties which Ceylon has had to face. The Donoughmore Commission report was unexpectedly liberal. It was very largely framed by my friend Drummond Shiels, who was at one time Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies, and it was an, extraordinarily liberal proposal. It was more liberal than any other coloured Dominion has got. It was met with determined hostility not merely by the English in. Ceylon but by a large element of the richer people in Ceylon. They resisted the Constitution being put into force for over a year, on the ground that it enacted manhood suffrage and a large amount of women suffrage, and that it was putting more power into the hands of the common people in Ceylon, rather than putting power into the hands of the privileged classes in Ceylon. The Labour Government, quite rightly, forced it through on its original basis of giving votes to the working classes, a thing which had never been done before in any Constitution in a coloured portion of the Empire. Therefore, we have to realise that this Constitution now in operation in Ceylon is not loved by certain people in Ceylon many of whom are now in the Council of State, and I can conceive it possible that those people will deliberately wreck the Constitution.
I warn my friend, the incomparable leader of the working-class in that country that if the sort of thing goes on that has been going on for the last two years he will cut his own throat for the benefit of the exploiting classes in Ceylon, and we shall see Ceylon go back to Crown Colony government. We may have to make up our minds that it is possible that Crown Colony government may be better for the people of Ceylon, although it is not that education in self-government and liberty which we want to see extended throughout the world. When the Constitution was originally passed it was resented bitterly by the then Governor of Ceylon and a considerable section of the official class in Ceylon. They did not want the Constitution, for they did not like it. That Governor went and another came who was more suitable and more beloved in Ceylon than any other British Governor. He has carried on for two years under great difficulties. If the people of Ceylon want to preserve the Constitution they must remember that it will be what the Governor decides and not what this House decides that will settle the fate of their Constitution. If Mr. Stubbs finds the same difficulty that Sir Graeme Thomson found, he will be able by merely reporting to the Colonial Office to put an end to their Constitution. Therefore, they must not continue the nagging and badgering process which has been going on.
At the same time I must point out that the Governor himself must realise that this power was given him to use. He has absolute power under the Constitution to veto, to amend, and also to initiate legislation, if he thinks it necessary, independently of the council. These powers were given him to act upon, and in order that he may act upon them without the fear of being criticised and attacked in the House of Commons or by the Colonial Office for carrying out his duty. Nearly every governor and official that I have known has always been afraid that he is going to be attacked by the Radicals or Labour people in this House for doing exactly what he ought to do. Of course, it is their sheer ignorance of us. When my hon. Friend on this side of the House gets into the Colonial Office he backs up his officials just the same as my hon. Friend opposite, and he thinks of the
problems which come forward in exactly the same way as my hon. Friend. There is no difference of party when it comes to dealing with Colonial Office affairs, and this imagined and sometimes invented fear of what they will say at home should not act as an excuse for a governor not doing the right thing for the Colonies.
I would also remind the Colonial Office that governors are in particular the representatives of this country. There is an old saying of Lord Cromer that anybody who went to Egypt must remember that it was his business to look after the interests of the Egyptians and not bother about the interests of the British. That policy is wrong. It has been the maxim of the Colonial Office and the Foreign Office for a long time, but it is wrong. They have to look after our interests too. If governors are always seeing things through native eyes, if they are always falling in love with native rajahs and millionaires, like the Indian Civil Service have done in India, then they are betraying their duty to the people of this country. The governor who knows his job as I would have him know it would deal with the Ceylonese just as you deal with children, educate them, spoil them perhaps sometimes, but teach them gradually what they can do with safety and what they cannot do with safety.
The people of Ceylon have this advantage over the people of India and most other people: they do not hate England, they are most friendly, and, in addition, they are must better educated. The number of newspapers printed in English in Ceylon, all taking different lines on politics, reminds me of South Africa. They have a political education and a good knowledge of English and English history. Give them a couple more years to work this Constitution, and when they realise that it is no use their thinking they can frighten the English out of Ceylon, that it is no use their thinking they will ever get more self-government than they have now, I think they will settle down. In places like Ceylon and Malta, and Cyprus, it seems to me that the people imagine that everybody in this House reads with interest every silly thing they say in their Parliaments. They cannot realise that nobody in this country, not even the officials of
the Colonial Office, ever reads a word of what they say. They seem to think that the whole world is hanging on the question as to whether the Cyprians will ever obtain reunion with Greece, when nobody knows whether the Cyprians ever want reunion. Exactly the same thing applies to Ceylon. The Ceylonese are intensely proud and think that we are learning lessons from them. It is about time they had a simple straightforward lesson from their friends in England. Mr. G. K. Chesterton in his book, "The Modern Traveller," says that the British traveller is perfectly safe because whatever happens we have got the Maxim guns and they have not.

Mr. ATTLEE: Hilaire Belloc.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Was it Hilaire Belloc? In any case, it is perfectly true. As long as a Government exists revolutionaries have no chance. Nobody can make any trouble for a Government in these days. Before the War it was easier, but now you cannot make trouble for a Government. All the Government have to do is to send an aeroplane and the troublesome village is wiped out in a very short time. The best thing to do in dealing with the British Empire is to show that you are using the exceptionally liberal Constitution on sound Europeanised lines. Take the Constitution of Ceylon, which I think is admirable. There is no communal representation in Ceylon, not the same thing that they are perpetrating in India, it is a good, sound working example, and upon the success of the Ceylonese, the Tamils, the Moor-men, and the Veddahs, depends not only the permanent liberty and education of the country but also the chances of other parts of the Empire being able hereafter to go along on the same or similar lines. I beg my friends in Ceylon, if they really want freedom and education, if they are not just shamming, to remember that their fate is in the balance in the next few years. I do not think there was any reason why they should have been forced to sign any Ottawa Convention, but, at the same time, if I was in Ceylon I would sign thousands of conventions rather than lose my freedom. I beg the Government to give the Ceylonese another couple of years and see if they cannot do better. Let us have a Parliamentary Commission to find out how the Constitution is working before the axe falls
on the Labour party's best effort in trying to spread self-government and entrusting people with the power and privilege of managing themselves.

5.54 p.m.

Sir N. STEWART SANDEMAN: I am glad indeed that the hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft) had the luck of drawing first place in the Ballot, and when I heard that he was going to raise this question I was delighted, because I knew that what might be said in this Debate would have good effect in Ceylon itself. The right hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) says that it might perhaps bring them to their senses and make them realise that they must behave themselves. The Amendment is about the thinnest and weakest Amendment I have ever heard. So far as I can make out Ceylon at present is in a very bad way, and I should have thought that if hon. Members opposite thought any of their friends were in a bad way, they would do what they could to get them some sort of attention in order to put things right.
The hon. and gallant Member for Birkenhead (Lieut.-Colonel Sandeman Allen) referred to the position of the Governor. As a matter of fact, the Governor has no power of promotion. That is in the hands of the Secretary of State, but if the Governor does not like the promotion he has the power of veto. I have seen a great many friends home from Ceylon, people in business and planters, and when I asked them the results of the Constitution they have said that they are bad all round. They can see nothing good in it either for the Ceylonese, or the white planters. Their feeling is that if something is not done pretty quickly the state of chaos which will result will make it even more difficult for things to be put right. Why not put things right now? Why not find out as quickly as we can? The affairs of Ceylon are not debated very much in this House, and if we ask questions it is difficult indeed for the Secretary of State to find out what is happening.
I am afraid that the Colonial Office do not want this subject debated to-day, which is rather a pity because I think that Debates in this House have a very salutary effect in some of these far distant places. Take the average Ceylonese.
I am told that he is as fluent and as plausible as a Welshman, there is nothing to beat him. They can all talk. Some people from the North of England can talk but not like a Welshman, and I hear that the Ceylonese are even better than Welshmen. I am referring to the politicians, not the ordinary Ceylonese. We are up against the politicians. It is the politicians who are the curse of every country, and in my mind there is no doubt that it is the politicians who are creating all the trouble in Ceylon. Now that they think they have the whip hand they think they can do anything they like. I am told that the intelligensia, the politicians, treat the British in the Island in a way which would not be tolerated if it was known. Why the British in Ceylon do not vent their grievances more often I do not know. But there is no doubt that some of the people in the island look down upon and despise Europeans. That is simply the outcome of the conciliatory and defeatist policy, which out there is taken as weakness. There is no question that even in this country if anyone thinks that you are a little bit soft and weak he will take advantage of you. How much more will an Eastern, who is rather accustomed to being treated the other way. If he thinks he has the big end of the stick he uses it for all it is worth. You cannot blame him.
They have made up their minds to clear us out of the country. I refer to the politicians. They are going to do it by any method that is in their power. To-day I heard something about the labour position in the high country, where all the Tamil labour is. As much as possible of that labour is being sent back to India, and when things get busier there will be a great shortage of labour. With the power they have, the politicians are going to make it very difficult for that labour to come back to the Island. They say that the reason for their action is to enable the natives of the Island to get work. Everyone knows that the ordinary Ceylonese is a fellow who will not work more than he is obliged. He can live cheaply, and if he finds, he can live on the work of two days a week he will not work for four or five or six days, which the growing of tea demands. That will be a bad position for the capital and prosperity of the country.
It is quite right what my hon. and gallant Friend said about Mr. Bandaranaike. He wants an advertisement, and I will give him a cheap one. I believe he was a very big man at Oxford in the Union. He wants to put all the British on board a ship, to take them out to sea and to sink them. I think he will find that pretty difficult. What is the position of civil servants in the Island? As we have heard, a very great percentage of them have left, and more are leaving, and any who think they can get away are going. A certain number for family reasons have to stay on, but they do not like it. They do not like being under a native. What sort of people are you going to recruit in the place of those who leave? I make bold to say that you will not get the best people, as you have done in the past, to go out to Ceylon. You will get a second-rater, because only a second-rater wants to take on such a job.
In the past there has been absolutely no bribery and corruption in Ceylon, so far as justice and so far as any office held by Europeans were concerned. Is that position going to last? Personally I do not believe it is, and the friends to whom I have spoken say they are certain that it will not last. In this country we hate bribery and corruption, but we do not mind commissions. We often hear about commissions being paid, and perfectly rightly. In the East they think nothing of bribery. It is a very much the same as the drawing of a commission in this country. From their point of view I do not see why they should not bribe, as bribe they certainly do. But it is very bad for justice, and for the poor people who cannot afford a bribe in order to get the justice they want.
In the case of the politicians I am informed that it will take three generations before they can possibly be fit to govern. There are plenty of good Ceylonese people who are about as good men as there are in the Empire. But will they touch politics? Not likely. They say that politics and politicians are dirty, and they will have nothing to do with them. If you could bring these people in and help them to rule the island, things would be different. They are people who have never been conquered yet by any country. They have always "stuck it" and won. They made a treaty with us and came in with us, but
we never conquered them. If you can get that type of man interested in running the island by a Council it will help. What you want is people to run the island for the good of the people in the island, and not for the good of their own pockets. What have we in the Council? The Speaker himself might be asked about it. I do not think he would like it. I want to know how many of the Ministers have prohibitory notices out against them. How many people in the Council who are not Ministers have prohibitory notices out against them? Are they the people who will run the country well?

Colonel WEDGWOOD: What is a prohibitory notice?

Sir N. STEWART SANDEMAN: It is the same as a writ, but there, if you keep under cover until six o'clock at night, you cannot be arrested. From the Lancashire point of view we are more than disgusted at our treatment in Ceylon. I do not want to give a great many figures, but here are some. In 1913 the United Kingdom sent 15,000,000 yards of bleached cotton goods to Ceylon, and in 1932 only 6,000,000 yards. Japan imports grew from 6,000 yards to 13,900,000 yards. In dyed goods we have dropped from 11,600,000 yards to 2,000,000 yards. Japan has gone up from 4,600,000 yards to 10,000,000 yards. In greys we have fallen from 4,000,000 to 2,000,000 yards, and the Japanese have increased from nothing to 1,700,000 yards. In printed goods we have come down from 8,000,000 to 5,000,000 yards, but the Japanese have increased from nothing to 14,000,000 yards. The cash turnover is on very much the same lines.
I do not want to bore the House with figures. Japan has gone up the whole time, so far as cotton goods are concerned, and there has been an enormous drop for Lancashire goods. It need not be, because I am credibly informed that if the natives could "get away with it" they would far rather have Lancashire goods than Japanese, because they think Lancashire goods are better. But they get no assistance from the people in charge. The politicians there are trying to annoy us and to pinprick here, there and in the next place, and they think that by destroying our trade as much as possible they will succeed in their nefarious projects.
We know how good a man the late Governor was. When he was coming home the politicians in Ceylon got the wind up and wanted to send to this country a deputation, but, thank goodness, the Colonial Office did not wish to see the politicians and told them they had better stay at home. I only hope that the present Governor—I am certain he will—will carry on in the same way as his predecessor. He has certainly got rough ground to hoe, but if he knows that he has public opinion and the House of Commons behind him, as the vote here to-night will show, he will be very much heartened. If the politicians succeed in clearing us out of Ceylon what is to be the position? They are not going to take care of themselves, and there are plenty of other people who are looking at Ceylon with longing eyes. You have Japan, who might quite easily find a use for Ceylon. I do not know what happened at the Singapore Conference. There are many of us who would like to know. We wonder very much if that position was considered there.
Before the Constitution came into operation the Ceylon revenue was in a good state. There has since been a great change for the worse. A great deal has been due to the world slump, but a great deal has also been caused by squander-mania. Why have the Ceylonese got this Constitution to-day? I personally look upon all our troubles as due to what happened in Ireland and the disgraceful come-away that we had there. It was reflected at once in Egypt, where Stack was murdered and our prestige decreased. Is Ireland in any better state to-day than it was before it got Home Rule? Is the peasant better off or is trade in a better position? Emphatically I say no! Then there was what happened in China. We have given up our extra-territorial rights there. That has all encouraged India and Ceylon to ask for more. Ceylon asked for a Committee to go out and we sent out four of the best men we had in the country, the Earl of Donoughmore, Sir Matthew Nathan, Mr. Geoffrey Butler and Dr. Drummond Shiels. You could not have got four better men. They went out and made up a Constitution which within two years we find is an absolute failure. That does not promise very well for other commissions and the result of their work. But I should very much like to see a Commis-
sion going out to Ceylon to ensure that we did not take any more hasty steps so far as India is concerned without knowing the result of what we have done in the past.
I am sorry that the Constitution for Ceylon went through without Parliament ever knowing anything about it. I hope that some means may be devised whereby a Constitution cannot in future be given to a Colony without the House of Commons being consulted and going through the thing from A to Z. I am certain that if the Ceylon Constitution had come before this House a good many alterations would have been made in it and it would have passed with difficulty. All the time we hear the slogan, "You cannot put the clock back." I am sick of hearing it. Who has put the clock back in Ceylon? Ask any of the people from Ceylon. It was our Government which was responsible for putting it back, simply because a few politicians got at them and bullied them. What are we afraid of? Are we afraid of being great at ruling as we used to be? Are we simply to be bullied by the first person who comes along, until we say, "Oh, we will give you anything for peace." We can purchase peace far too dearly.
I hope that this commission will go out. I hate commissions, because I think that as a rule you can get any sort of report you like. Suppose that you sent a commission to Russia with the hon. Member for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison) and the hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) on it. You would get two entirely different reports. You can always work it that way. It depends on whom you select for the commission. To think that I, who dislike commissions and what they have done, should be asking for a commission to be appointed, strikes me as rather funny. What happens to the reports of commissions? We had the Simon Commission which made probably the best report ever made by a commission, but that report was not even discussed by this House. Because it did not go as far as certain people wanted, it was shelved and a new set of circumstances was evolved. I do not like that sort of thing but I hope that a commission will be sent out to Ceylon and will give
us a report which will bring the matter to a head, and enable us to have it properly settled.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. LUNN: I do not think the last speech calls for a reply from me. It was a rather remarkable speech in the amount of hate which the hon. Member displayed—in words. I would not like to think that he feels in his soul the hate which he expressed regarding politicians—of whom he is one himself—and also regarding commissions, to which Members usually like to be appointed if they are interested in the matters to be referred to such bodies. I suggest to the hon. Member that, even if he feels bitterly upon these matters, the word "hate" is one which is better left out when speaking to others who, perhaps, do not feel any hatred towards their fellows in any part of the world. I agreed with the hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft) when he said that there was a great responsibility on this House in all matters concerning the welfare of our Colonial Empire, and that, where there is reason and justification for raising questions in this House affecting various parts of the Colonies, full opportunity should be given for discussion here.
The hon. and gallant Member proceeded to argue however that the State Council in Ceylon spent their time in wasteful controversy. What a new thing to say regarding any Parliament. Is the State Council in Ceylon the only legislature which spends time in wasteful controversy? What about the hon. and gallant Member's Motion and this Debate? The hon. and gallant Member says he has no faith in democracy, and because of its results in Ceylon—though it would be very difficult to prove that the Government in Ceylon is a democratic Government—he wants a Parliamentary Commission to go there. The hon. and gallant Member raises this question at a time when he knows his Motion cannot be accepted. No Government could accept this Motion, which is not an urgent. Motion, at a time when the principal representative of the Government on this matter, in this Parliament, is absent from the House. The hon. and gallant Member never mentioned the Secretary of State for the Colonies. We know that the right hon. Gentleman has had a serious illness, that he has recovered and
that he is on his way home. But he is not here and he cannot reply, and, with all due respect to the hon. Gentleman who is going to reply, I submit that it is impossible to accept a Motion of this kind, when the Secretary of State for the Colonies is not for the time being in the House.

Sir H. CROFT: I am sure that everybody in the House will acquit me of making any attack on the Secretary of State. It is monstrous to suggest that just because the Secretary of State happens to be at the other end of the world, I am to be accused of discourtesy in raising a question of this kind in the House, when the Under-Secretary of State is present to reply.

Mr. LUNN: That does not make any difference to my argument. The hon. and gallant Member never alluded to the Secretary of State. Had he wished to allude to the right hon. Gentleman, he had the opportunity of doing so in a 35 minutes speech. He could have mentioned the fact that the Secretary of State would be unable to reply to this Debate and to the suggestion to which he is making. I say that if there is any necessity for such a commission to go out, which I deny, there is no urgency for it, and that the matter might have waited for the return of the Secretary of State. The hon. and gallant Member's other point was with regard to trade. He said that the State Council refused to give a preference because they thought it would be an intolerable burden on the poor. I should say if that is the fact that it would be a very justifiable attitude on the part of the State Council. The hon. and gallant Member knows, perhaps better than I do, the conditions of the poor in Ceylon. He knows the pauper wages of the unskilled labourers in Ceylon. He knows that the pay is less than 1s. a day. I would say that, even in these matters, the State Council are doing right if they are looking after the interests of the poor, and opposing anything which they feel is going to be against the well-being of the people of Ceylon.
If we are to send Parliamentary delegations to every part of the Empire in which legislation is passed, which we do not consider wise, we shall have Parliamentary delegations in nearly every part of the Empire. Are we to send out com-
missions because we do not agree with the wisdom of the decisions of various legislatures in the Empire on various occasions, and on various questions? I feel that in regard to this matter, there is no reason whatever for the hon. and gallant Member's Motion at this moment. When this Constitution was established, all parties agreed to it. The hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth said that it passed through "like a thief in the night." A commission which everybody has described as a most able commission, was out there for a long time. Dr. Drummond Shiels, who was Under-Secretary for the Colonies in the Labour Government, was a member of that commission, and I think everybody agrees that he was not an idle member, but took a very active part in its work. The report of the commission was before the people in Ceylon for 20 months. It was a Parliamentary Paper, and it was possible for any Member of this House to have raised the question even before the Order in Council was promulgated and the Constitution established. Moreover, it was accepted by those in the Ceylon legislature.
I do not say that it was accepted by everybody. Can it be said that any Constitution or a decision on any question of this kind is ever accepted by everybody? Had this Constitution been accepted unanimously it would have been unique. I do not say that there is democratic Government in Ceylon. Indeed I know there is not, though they have adult franchise and a fairly large measure of self-government. To whatever extent they have democratic government, it is only in internal affairs, and even there, they are subject to an overriding veto by the Government. They have never reached the position which I heard the Secretary of State not long ago declare to be the position in Ceylon, namely, one in which the domestic interests of the people were in the keeping of elected representatives. The State Council have no power over foreign affairs, finance or the administration of justice. Those matters are largely in the hands of the official members and the Governor. I know there are those who dislike government by the people anywhere, and I understand that the present Governor of Ceylon may be numbered among them.

Lieut.-Commander AGNEW: What reason has the hon. Member for making that statement about a public servant—a member of the Colonial Civil Service?

Mr. LUNN: I do not feel constrained to deal with that matter, except to say that the Governor made use of the power of veto on an occasion when it would have been more in the interests of the people had he not done so.

Sir H. CROFT: Is the hon. Member now referring to the late Governor?

Mr. LUNN: I am speaking of the present Governor, because this Constitution has not been in operation very long, and I am dealing with the man who applied the veto. I am not withdrawing that statement.

Sir H. CROFT: The hon. Member is entirely wrong. The present Governor has been there only three weeks.

Mr. LUNN: I mean the Governor who applied the veto.

Sir H. CROFT: The late Governor died a month ago.

Mr. LUNN: That is the Governor to whom I was alluding—who used the veto unwisely and unnecessarily upon some occasions and in a manner distasteful to the people of Ceylon. I am satisfied that this experiment in self-government should be continued. It is largely copied from our own local government system. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Yes, it is largely copied in its arrangements and its working from our own local government system, and I would say that it is functioning not inefficiently. I do not believe there is any reason at this moment for a Parliamentary inquiry. I think the people in Ceylon should have a larger and wider opportunity than they have yet had. The present system may not be perfect, but it is not yet three years old, and the Ceylon legislators might be given a fair chance without being confused and distracted by uncalled for Motions of this kind and interference from outside. Further, I would say that the power of veto ought to be used very sparingly and not in an arbitrary manner. It was only to be used in case of need and it should only be used in that way.
The people of Ceylon are British subjects and they desire to remain British subjects. They desire that Ceylon should
remain a part of the Empire. They are carrying on this Constitution in a manner which is quite satisfactory, on the principle of rule by the people, which I have always understood to be the principle on which the foundations of the British Empire have been laid. I agree that political freedom should be granted wherever possible, and extended as far as possible to every part of the Empire. That is a laudable desire. Constitutional difficulties, in my opinion, ought to be avoided. There is far more important work to be done in improving the social and economic conditions of the people, and I believe we ought to encourage and help the people of Ceylon and the members of the administration who are doing their best to make the new Constitution a success. The people's interest ought to come first and ought not to be subordinated to any other consideration, or wrecked to suit partisans who desire to make use of the position in Ceylon in an attack upon the proposed constitutional changes in India.
It is best to let the people of Ceylon decide their own attitude towards the problems of Ceylon, and, whenever necessary, we should, acting through the Secretary of State for the Colonies, confer with them on matters which affect both this country and Ceylon. This Constitution was accepted before 1931 by several unofficial European members of the Legislature at that time, and the present British members of the State Council are opposed to a change before it has been given a fair and reasonable opportunity in its work. I am astonished at what my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) suggested regarding an inquiry at this moment, when the Constitution has only had two years' working and really has not had the opportunity that it ought to have had. There are many people who would like to destroy it.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I think that before they take action we should have an inquiry.

Mr. LUNN: I am not favourable to it being destroyed, nor to the power of democracy being destroyed anywhere. I want to see it extended, and I believe these people should be given a fair and reasonable opportunity. They are on the spot and in touch with realities. They know what is the position. There are
people, however, who want a change and who are not satisfied with the Constitution as it is to-day. They want no self-government, but let us not forget that at the end of the War nearly all of us believed that self-government and self-determination should be given to all small nationalities. We all said we believed in it, but I am afraid many of us have now got away from that point of view. I do not want an inquiry at this moment. It is too early, and when the time comes for a change we on this side, if we have any part to play in that change, shall go for complete self-government being established in Ceylon, as might be understood clearly from the policy of the Labour party towards the Colony.
The Secretary of State is not able to be here to-day, but I hope he will see that everything is done than can be done to make this new Constitution a success, a greater success than it is now, and one way to help would be to see that those appointed to official posts, such as Governor and officers of State, are persons who have faith in the idea of self-government in Ceylon and a genuine sympathy for native conditions and political aspirations. I hope the Government will not in any way associate themselves with this uncalled-for Motion, which, if carried, would, I believe do infinite harm in this country, in Ceylon, and in the Empire. For these reasons I think I can safely say that the Members of the Opposition will vote for the Amendment.

6.33 p.m.

Sir ROBERT HAMILTON: The hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft), who moved the Motion, and the Seconder of the Motion gave us not only a historical sketch of the situation in Ceylon, but added to it a variety of criticisms, not only on the working of the Constitution, but on the persons who have had to deal with its working in the island. It is very easy to make criticisms of that nature. We are aware that every Legislature which functions in any portion of the world lays itself open to criticism, and when you take the line of picking out all the faults that you can, you may make a very material collection of faults. In order to get a fairer perspective of the position as it was when the Commission made their report, we ought to look at what the position was
before the new Constitution was introduced in 1931. Before that date, as hon. Members know, there had been an unofficial majority in the country, and that unofficial majority had power without responsibility. The hon. Member who moved the Amendment referred to that, as did the Donoughmore Commission. A more unsatisfactory state of things cannot be imagined than that of an unofficial majority which has the power to interrupt the whole business of government and yet has not the responsibility of having to answer for what it does. The Donoughmore Commission itself found that the unofficial members, denied all prospect of office, were not in danger of being called upon to translate their criticisms into action. Imagine the result, if we can imagine it, of a permanently impotent Opposition in this Parliament, an Opposition who knew they were there for ever, without any chance of sitting on the Treasury Bench, and who could only relieve their souls by wild criticisms of whatever the Government did. That is exactly what happened in Ceylon. The Commission went on to say in their report:
The distinctive feature of their policy was a launching of continuous and irresponsible attacks on the members of the Government, collectively and individually.
That was the soil in which the seed of the new Constitution had to be sown, and when hon. Members say, as the seconder of the Motion said, that things have gone from bad to worse, we have to remember the very unsatisfactory condition of affairs in the island before the new great experiment was made. That new experiment has only been in operation for a little more than two years, and to my mind, and I feel sure to the minds of the majority of the Members of this House, it would be not only an improper but a ridiculous thing to say that a Constitution which had only been working for such a short time, a Constitution of an experimental nature like that, should be subjected to immediate review because it had done certain things which laid it open to criticism. I am sure it is far more in consonance with the feelings of this House to let the people in Ceylon know that the Members of this House are watching with interest the working of this great experiment, that we hope it will succeed, but that at the same time they must realise that the
responsibility is upon the Members of that House to make the experiment a success.

6.38 p.m.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. Malcolm MacDonald): The whole House will regret that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies is not here to-day to reply to this Debate, and no hon. Member regrets his absence more than I do, but we are all delighted to know that he is now on board ship and that he is steaming back as fast as he can to take his place in this House. No one will disagree with what my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft) said about the contribution which British government in Ceylon has made towards the prosperity and the well-being of the Island and the people of the Island. The only point on which I would take issue with him is in his description of what is happening in the Island to-day. He has asked for a Parliamentary Commission to go out and inquire into what he says is a gross failure of democratic government. What is the position? It is only about six years since a Commission did visit the Island. Three out of the four members of that Commission were Members of Parliament, and therefore that Commission was almost entirely a Parliamentary Commission. They inquired into the very subject which it is proposed that a new Commission should inquire into, namely, the government of the Island of Ceylon, and it is as a result of that almost completely Parliamentary Commission's observations and inquiries that the present Constitution was brought into being in Ceylon.
That Constitution came into being about 2½ years ago, in July, 1931, just about one month before the first National Government took office in this country, and I think that that connection of dates is important, because it brings forcibly to our minds the fact that that Constitution has only been in being so far during times which have been particularly difficult for the Government of any country. They have not been normal times; they have been times of very particular stress, and Ceylon, like other countries, has suffered from the effects of the economic depression. Even in normal times and under normal conditions 2½ years would
be a comparatively short period for making up one's mind as to the permanent measure of success or failure of a Constitution, and most certainly 2½ years of abnormal conditions is not a fair trial of a bold Constitution.
What has our experience of these 2½ years been? Has there really been a breakdown in the Constitution. If so, or if there is a real threat of a breakdown in the Constitution, then certainly, I agree, it would be the bounden duty of this Government and this House to inquire carefully and seriously into the whole position. But is there in fact any reason for apprehension or a cause for alarm or even for serious uneasiness? The Motion would suggest that there is, and I listened carefully to hear what evidence would be produced to show that. I am bound to say that my hon. and gallant Friend drew an exceedingly black picture, but, if I may say so, when he was doing that, he showed himself to be a great master of the art of selection; he took what was unusual and made it appear usual, and he took the exception and made it appear the rule. Let us examine the case which has been made. My hon. and gallant Friend treated the House to an extremely interesting historical account of the government in Ceylon and to a very interesting description of the present Constitution. The House is familiar with the Constitution, composed as it is of a Governor, Officers of State, Ministers who are the elected heads of Executive Committees, and the almost entirely popularly elected State Council.
Here I would like to answer a question that was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Middleton and Prestwich (Sir N. Stewart Sandeman), who wanted to know how many of these elected Ministers and how many of these elected members of the State Council had been served with prohibitory notices. The answer is, "None at all," and the reason for that is that the Constitution which he is attacking makes it impossible. The Constitution says:
No person shall be capable of being elected or appointed as a member or of sitting or voting in the Council as an elected or nominated member who … is an uncertified or undischarged bankrupt or insolvent.
That is in the Constitution, and the Constitution is being carried out.

Sir N. STEWART SANDEMAN: But that is not quite what I meant. You might not be bankrupt but have a writ served against you.

Mr. MacDONALD: That would be taken as evidence of bankruptcy, and certainly it would be regarded as contrary to the spirit and the letter of this Constitution, and the answer to the hon. Member's question is that there are no members to answer the description suggested by the hon. Member.
We know that the State Council and the popularly elected Ministers have been given certain very wide powers. Side by side with those powers the Governor has certain special powers which can, on occasion, conflict with the powers given to the State Council and the Ministers. The Governor can, for instance, veto any legislation. He can also reserve any Bill for the signification of His Majesty's pleasure. He can, in addition to that, insist on and give effect to measures which he himself believes to be necessary on certain matters, despite the refusal of the State Council to pass them. The hon. and gallant Member believes that that combination of powers—that conflict of powers if you like to describe it so—has resulted in damage to the working of the Constitution, and damage to law and order and the well-being of the Island generally. He says that the State Council "spends its time baiting the Governor." That simply is not true. He says that the Governor has had to use his veto "frequently." I simply is not so. What are the facts? This Constitution has been operating for two and a half years, and the Governor has never once had to use his power of veto. Not only does he not use it frequently, but he has never used it at all.

Sir H. CROFT: He has used the power of certification.

Mr. MacDONALD: That is another matter. There is his power of reserving a measure. He has used that once in two and a half years in the case of the measure concerning debtors, to which the hon. and gallant Member referred. That was the solitary occasion, and instead of that Bill being passed enthusiastically, as my hon. and gallant Friend said, it was passed by a bare majority of one. The Governor used his power to
reserve that for His Majesty's pleasure, and the matter was settled satisfactorily, as my hon. and gallant Friend would agree it should be settled, under the terms of this Constitution. With regard to the power that the Governor has to certify measures, he has used that on only a few occasions, the number of which one can count on the fingers of one's hands. On what occasions has he used that power? Here is an example. A Government Assessor was to be appointed. The State Council thought his salary should be a certain figure. The Governor did not feel that that figure was sufficient to get an officer of sufficiently high qualifications and wanted a higher salary to be paid. The Governor used his powers under this Constitution to get a satisfactory settlement of that matter. There was to be a works manager appointed in the Government printing press, and again there was a difference of opinion between the Governor and the State Council and Ministers with regard to the salary. The Governor used his power of certification in order to get a salary which he desired, and which my hon. and gallant Friend would no doubt desire.
It is in that type of case which has been a rare case, that the Governor has used his power, and every one of the cases has been satisfactorily settled under the terms of the Constitution. Yet my hon. and gallant Friend would have us send out a Parliamentary Commission to inquire into the whole question of Government and policy in Ceylon. As a matter of fact, cases of difference of opinion, between the Governor and the Ministers, or the Governor and the State Council, have been very few, and none of these has been so serious as to interfere with the administration of the island.

Sir H. CROFT: My hon. Friend would agree that all the cases I gave are accurate?

Mr. MacDONALD: I agree; but I congratulated the hon. and gallant Member on his art of selection. The point is that anyone not knowing anything about the subject and listening to his speech would have got the impression that this happened every day. He said that the State Council "spent its time baiting the Governor." Only on a few occasions have these matters arisen, and every one of them has been settled under the terms
of the Constitution in a manner which would be satisfactory to my hon. and gallant Friend and to every hon. Member. I can assure the House that on questions of policy, in the vast majority of cases the Governor co-operates with the Ministers and the Ministers co-operate with the Governor. Because of something my hon. Friend the Member for Rothwell (Mr. Lunn) said I must make it plain that we have absolute confidence in the Governor, who is carrying out his duties under the Constitution loyally and with the good will of the people in Ceylon. There has been no breakdown of the Constitution; on the contrary, the Constitution on the whole and in difficult years has worked smoothly and satisfactorily and with good will between the Governor, the Legislature and the people.
Let me refer to one or two other matters which have been raised, with regard to questions which might have been expected to create trouble under this Constitution. There is the question of finance. As an hon. Member reminded the House, the Department of Finance comes under one of the Officers of State specially appointed with the approval of the Secretary of State, and the financial policy has been conducted quite satisfactorily under the Constitution. It is true that during these two or three years deficits have been estimated for. But that has nothing to do with the fact that there is democratic government in Ceylon. There are deficits in other Crown Colonies, and it is a state of affairs only too common throughout the Colonies to-day, and, indeed, in far more wealthy communities which are not colonies. That state of affairs is due not to democratic government in Ceylon, but to the world trade depression, which Ceylon has not escaped any more than anyone else. At this moment, under the Constitution the staple industries of Ceylon, such as tea, are improving. Under this Government the financial difficulties are being overcome, and there is no reason to suppose that the Budget will not be balanced in future.
My hon. and gallant Friend mentioned a specific point on which he criticised the State Council on financial matters. He pointed out truthfully that British firms have to pay 2 per cent. more in Income Tax than some other firms in the Island, and he quoted that as a case of dis-
crimination against British firms. That is not what happens. The Clause which imposes that additional 2 per cent. says that it shall be charged upon the taxable income of companies whose shares are not movable property situate in Ceylon for the purpose of Ceylon estate duty; and the purpose of that additional 2 per cent. is to make up for the loss of estate duty due to the fact that neither the property owned by such companies in Ceylon nor their shares are liable to Ceylon estate duty. Many countries use various means for levying a special tax in order to make up what they lose on estate duties in that manner. It cannot, therefore, be said by any stretch of the imagination that this is special and vicious discrimination against British firms.
Take the question of police, again a most vital matter. My hon. and gallant Friend tried to make our flesh creep by saying that in two years' time there would be only four Europeans left in the police force. He has no authority for saying that. At the present moment there are more European police officers than Ceylonese officers in the police force. The appointments and promotions are under the control of the Governor. If putting the police force into a Department, the head of which is one of the elected members of the council, had resulted in a deterioration of the efficiency of the force or any failure in their duty to maintain law and order, that would certainly be a matter for serious inquiry. There is no evidence to show that that has happened. My hon. and gallant Friend gave figures to show that cases of crime had increased from something like 9,500 to less than 10,500 within, I think, the last two years. If my hon. and gallant Friend will look at the figures of crime in almost any country in the world during the trade depression, it will be found that one of the effects of the depression has been an increase of crime. It has no more to do with democratic Government in Ceylon than the democratic Government in this country, where the same feature is typical of the trade depression, which is responsible for the increase. All I can say is that the information that we have leads us to believe, and to believe sincerely, that the efficiency of the police force has not been interfered with in any way by being put into a Department that is presided over
by one of the elected members. On the contrary, I am given to understand that the highest police officers in Ceylon express the opinion that their conditions are as satisfactory under the new Constitution as they were under the old.
Another extremely important matter is the public service. It is true, again, that if there had been a deterioration in the public service under the new Constitution that would be a matter of serious inquiry. It is important that the conditions of service and pay of public servants in Ceylon should be maintained at a rate which attracts men of efficiency and high qualifications. All that is protected in the Constitution which my hon. Friends have been attacking. They know perfectly well that no measure prejudicial to any officer who was in the service before the Constitution came into being or any officer appointed since with the approval of my right hon. Friend can be put into effect without the sanction of my right hon. Friend. They know that appointments and promotions throughout the public service are under the control of the Governor. No measures can even be introduced into the State Council affecting the conditions of their service or their salaries without the leave of the Governor and, as I have pointed out, in cases where there has been disagreement on these points the Governor has used his power of certification, and his will has prevailed. In the same way the pensions of all these officers are protected under the Constitution. No one is going to say that this is an easy Constitution to work, but I assure the House that nothing has occurred in any of these important Departments—Finance, Police, Public Services, or any other that I know of—which would justify sending to Ceylon a special commission of inquiry, possibly to revise the whole Constitution.
I know that there is one other matter which concerns—and rightly concerns—hon. Members of this House, and which concerns particularly my hon. Friends who sit for Lancashire constituencies: The question of a preference on British cotton goods going into Ceylon. My right hon. Friend has made his views on that question quite as plain as has any Lancashire Member in this House. He has stated his views firmly and sincerely. We are not satisfied with what happened. The Ministers in Ceylon some months ago put forward in the State Council a pro-
posal for a whole range of British preferences, and unfortunately the State Council refused to grant those preferences on some items, the most important of which was cotton textiles. My right hon. Friend expressed his view on that occasion quite as firmly as any hon. Member in this House. Nevertheless, let us get the position with regard to the preference on cotton textiles quite clear in our minds, and let us get the perspective of it. In refusing to give that preference, the State Council were not actually breaking any agreement. Largely owing to the brilliant negotiations conducted by my right hon. Friend, the Dominions granted a considerable number of preferences to goods coming into their territories from the Colonies, and, in return for that grant of preferences, my right hon. Friend undertook to do his best to get Colonial Governments to give certain preferences to Dominion goods going into the Colonies. He failed in the case of cotton goods in Ceylon, but the Ceylon State Council were not breaking any actual agreement in refusing, for the reason which my hon. Friends have given—their consideration for their own poor citizens—to grant that preference.
That, however, is not the end of the story. Anybody listening to the speeches which have been delivered in the House this afternoon would think it was. The Ministers proposed a whole series of preferences, and the State Council of Ceylon granted a large number of those preferences on British imports. As a matter of fact, something like half our imports going into Ceylon enjoy substantial preference to-day. I listened in vain to hear any statement about that fact, or any reference to it in the speech of my hon. and gallant Friend. He said nothing that was untrue in the actual cases which he gave, but he left out a good deal that was true as well. In all his explorations of the history of Ceylon he will not find that any preference was given to British goods under the past Crown Colony Government or under the form of Constitution of 1910 or of 1920. It was not until we had the present Constitution and a form of semi-democratic government in Ceylon that preferences were granted on British goods. I am quite sure that my hon. and gallant Friend will not disagree with that statement. He ought to applaud the State Council: they may not have done every-
thing that he wanted, but who is going to do that? Every hon. Member of this House respects my hon. and gallant Friend's views on the fiscal question, and every hon. Member recognises that he has fought a tremendous battle, with a good deal of success, for those views. He ought to be the first man to acknowledge what has happened under this Constitution of Ceylon in regard to that matter. In fact, I am not sure that his Motion ought not to read as follows:
That this House, in view of the results of democratic government in Ceylon, is of opinion that a Parliamentary Commission should be appointed to proceed to that island to express appreciation of its acceptance of tariffs and its extension of the system of Imperial Preference.
We agree, however, about the question of a preference to cotton textiles. The position is that certain preferences were given by the Dominions to the Colonies, including Ceylon, at the Ottawa Conference, and in our view it would have been a reasonable and proper return for those preferences if the State Council of Ceylon had agreed to give a preference to the British cotton textiles coming to their Island. I do not, however, agree that this is a situation which can wisely or profitably be handled by threatening to withdraw the whole Constitution or to appoint a commission of inquiry into the whole wide question, with all its ramifications, of the Constitution in Ceylon.
I should like to make one last point, which has been mentioned before. The suggestion has been made in Ceylon that the time has now come when there should be a considerable extension of the principle of self-government in the Island. My right hon. Friend has made a perfectly clear statement on that suggestion; he has said that he will not consider it, and his perfectly clear statement has settled the matter for the time being. But does the House suppose that the question would be regarded as settled if in a few weeks from now a Parliamentary Commission proceeded to the Island to inquire into the question of the government of Ceylon? The whole question would be raised again, and interested parties would exploit the visit of the commission in order to raise a great agitation. I submit that in the working of the Constitution there have been cases of difference, but they have
been exceptional. On the whole, the Constitution has worked smoothly and satisfactorily. Under the Constitution Ceylon is recovering from the difficulties which have been created chiefly by the world economic depression. In any case, the Constitution has been in operation for only two and a-half years, and for those reasons I am afraid that it is impossible for the Government to accept the Motion which has been moved. For the same reasons the Government gladly accept the Amendment which has been moved to the Motion.

7.8 p.m.

Viscount WOLMER: The exceedingly interesting Debate we have had has fully justified my hon. Friend in raising this matter before the House. The very able and eloquent defence which we have had from the Under-Secretary of the working of the Constitution shows the necessity for my hon. and gallant Friend's Motion. The account which the House has just heard from the Front Bench of the working of the 1931 Constitution is very different from the accounts which have reached many hon. Members from other sources. If there is this difference of opinion, the Motion is clearly necessary in a matter of such vital importance to the whole Empire.
This is the first great constitutional experiment on democratic lines to be applied to an oriental nation within the Empire. The importance of the question, therefore, greatly transcends the importance of the island of Ceylon. In view of the extraordinary discrepancy between the official view on how this Constitution is working and the private view which is reaching so many Members of Parliament, my hon. and gallant Friend is amply justified in demanding that there shall be an impartial commission to go and ascertain facts and find out, for the information of this House and of the British people, what the facts are, and how the Constitution is working. The Under-Secretary is absolutely satisfied with the working of the Constitution, and I hope that everybody who is concerned with trade in our Empire in the East will note what, in the minds of the National Government, is a constitutional success. According to the Under-Secretary, if we can achieve elsewhere the results which have been achieved in Ceylon, we shall be installing a great success. I should
like to know what is going to happen to British trade in that case. The Under-Secretary drew a very couleur de rose picture, something totally different from the information that has reached us. I will give a very good example of his apt and beautiful phraseology. His concluding reason against the appointment of this commission, he said, was that, "The suggestion has now been made that the democratic powers under this Constitution should be extended." Those words were a delightful description of the fact, which is coming to us unofficially, that the Donoughmore Constitution has absolutely failed to satisfy the demand of the Congress party for self-government; that it is referred to publicly in the Parliamentary Debates of Ceylon as "the detested Donoughmore Constitution"; and that an agitation is on foot, and has, I gather, been on foot ever since the Constitution came into force, for the repeal of every safeguard it contains. My hon. Friend describes that movement as "the suggestion has now been made that the democratic power should be extended." So far as our information goes, and I admit that we have not the same sources of information as the Government——

Sir EDWARD CAMPBELL: Might I ask the Noble Lord who "our" is?

Viscount WOLMER: Those who are going to support my hon. and gallant Friend in the Lobby; those hon. Members who are asking for an impartial investigation into the working of the Constitution. We have only unofficial sources of information——

Mr. KIRKWOOD: You have got it for Russia.

Viscount WOLMER: ——to put against the couleur de rose picture of the Government, and the information that reaches us is of such a grave character that we feel justified in pressing for this enquiry. The opponents of this Motion, the Movers of the Amendment, have said that two and a-half years is a ridiculously short time after which to send out a Commission of Inquiry. But if it is true, as we are told, that the Donoughmore Constitution has absolutely failed to satisfy the popular demand, the Nationalist demand, the demand of the Congress party for self-government, surely the sooner the people of this country are made aware of the fact the better.
We are also told—and I do not think that what the Under-Secretary said really goes against it—that the effect of this Constitution will be the gradual but steady elimination of the British element in the Civil Service of that country. During the short time the Constitution has been working the pension rights of civil servants have been attacked steadily by the Congress party, their leave rights have been attacked, and the period for which their service is to extend has also been attacked. The British element in the Civil Service has fallen by over 20 per cent. in those two years. The significant thing about those facts, as pointed out by my hon. Friend who moved the Amendment, is that under the Constitution the Governor has complete control in all these matters, that is to say, there are the most ample paper safeguards in the Donoughmore Constitution for the protection of all the British civil servants of Ceylon; and yet whereas the annual retirements used to be at the rate of 10 or 12 a year, last year more than 60 members retired from the Civil Service. Is not that enough to show that, in spite of the paper safeguards which the Governor possesses, the British civil servants themselves have not the same confidence in the future of their careers as they had before this Constitution was introduced?
Then there is also the very alarming increase of crime since the Constitution came into force. The Under-Secretary says this is due to no inefficiency in the administration of law and order, and that we can find the same increases of crime in any country in the world, owing to the industrial depression. That is exactly the sort of matter which requires impartial examination by an impartial body, to see whether it is the type of crime caused by economic depression or the type caused by inefficient police administration. Then we come to the question of British trade, and to the fact that, among all the Colonies of the Empire, Ceylon alone has refused to give any sort of preference on British cotton piece goods. I think my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary was talking with his tongue in his cheek when he referred to the fact that in 1910 Ceylon gave no sort of preference to British goods. He knows perfectly well, and the House knows perfectly well, that in 1910 all Colonies were administered by the Colonial Office, that
the policy of the House of Commons was Free Trade, and that there was no question of Imperial Preference at all. The great obstructionists to Imperial Preference were then in Downing Street, as they still are.
In the correspondence published there is one fact which has struck me as being very significant. When the Ceylon Council refused to give any preference on Lancashire cotton, the Secretary of State did not veto that decision, which I think he had the power to do, but he warned the Ceylon Government that it would be necessary for this country to reconsider the preference which we give to goods coming from Ceylon. When I read that, I could not help being very strongly reminded of the position which his brother the Dominions Secretary has got into with the Irish Free State. If there is in power in a Dominion or a Colony a body of Ministers who do not intend to play the Imperial game, and who are not prepared to give preferences in the way that Canada and Australia have done, we are bound sooner or later to drift into a tariff war. Just as we have drifted into tariff war in Ireland, it seems that we shall drift into a sort of tariff war with Ceylon. That will be a bad thing for the people of Ceylon, and the very worst thing for Imperial sentiment in the Empire, and I would warn His Majesty's Government that that method of trying to promote Empire trade is not one on which it can be permanently based.
Let the House realise how serious is the situation as regards Lancashire trade with Ceylon. My hon. and gallant Friend reminded the House that in 1913 75 per cent. of the cotton goods taken by Ceylon came from this country. Last year only 15 per cent., in bulk, came from this country, whereas over 60 per cent. came from Japan; and even if we take values, what this country sent was less than 30 per cent. I ask my hon. Friends how they think that the trade of this country can possibly be maintained if, in every part of the Empire, we set up Parliaments which are going to squeeze out and exclude British trade? I do not wish to make any sort of reflection or attack on the Ceylonese politicians. In their point of view, it is perfectly natural, perfectly understandable. We
can reproach them with forgetting all that this country has done for Ceylon, but it is only natural that they should forget it. If we arm people with the vote and allow them to elect representatives in a so-called democratic assembly, whose whole authority is drawn from the democratic principle, then those elected members will of necessity try to aggrandise their own position vis-à-vis any controlling authority, and of necessity they will be driven to a very nationalistic point of view. We have seen it arising in Europe, where the multiplication of small States has led to an intensive nationalism which is now one of the greatest sources of danger to the European situation. By giving popular assemblies to different Colonies and clothing them with power in the name of democracy, we are creating the same sort of anti-imperial local nationalisation which, to my mind, is absolutely incompatible with the continuance of British trade within the Empire as we have known it in the past.
If the Under-Secretary and the Government view with complacency what has happened in Ceylon, I would ask those whose livelihood is dependent upon trade with India and other parts of the Empire to look at the example of Ceylon, and to consider what is likely to happen to that trade and to their livelihood, if the same state of affairs, of which my hon. Friend paints so rosy a picture, and which causes so much complacency to the Government, is reproduced in other parts of the world which are still called the British Empire. The tendencies to which I have ventured to allude are based on information which reaches us, on what we read in the public press, on what friends write to us and what we hear from people who come from that country. If those tendencies are correct, if the Donoughmore Constitution has not in the least appeased the nationalistic demands, if we have not satisfied a single one of the agitators of 1931, if we have won no gratitude from any section of the community, if we are no more popular to-day than we were when the Constiution was granted, if the financial affairs of the country—which has admittedly passed through a difficult time—are badly, extravagantly and short-sightedly handled, and the British element in the civil services is being steadily eliminated—if all those results
have come from the grant of quasi self-government to Ceylon, surely it is necessary for these matters to be inquired into impartially and brought home to the British people.
Our information is absolutely different from the information of the Government. In putting forward this Motion we are only asking for an impartial inquiry, as much in the interests of the people of this country and of other parts of the Empire as of the interests of the people of Ceylon. But let this House always remember that when we handed over those 5,000,000 Ceylonese to the mercies of the politicians in the council we did not thereby absolve ourselves from responsibility for them, and if that Constitution is not being well worked, if steps are now being taken which will ultimately prejudice the welfare and interests of the people of Ceylon, then surely it is necessary that this House should acquaint itself with the facts at the earliest possible moment, so that mistaken steps should not be pressed too far. For those reasons, if my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft) presses his Motion to a Division, I shall certainly support him in the Lobby.

Sir H. CROFT: rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put," but MR. SPEAKER withheld his

assent, and declined then to put that Question.

7.28 p.m.

Sir E. CAMPBELL: I sincerely hope that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft) will not press this Motion to a Division. I must admit that I have a great deal of sympathy with what he says and with his criticism. On the other hand, we have to remember that it is only two and a-half years since this Constitution was granted, and the people of Ceylon will say, "Are you making fools of us? We asked for a Constitution, you gave us a Constitution during the most difficult time the world has ever known, and without giving us a chance of showing whether this Constitution is really successful or is not you ask for this inquiry. The whole world is depressed and upset, and why should we be expected to carry on in two and a-half years a new Constitution such as has taken all the countries of Europe hundreds of years——"

Sir H. CROFT: rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The House divided: Ayes, 93; Noes, 138.

Division No. 117.]
AYES.
[7.30 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Remer, John R.


Alexander, Sir William
Hartington, Marquess of
Renwick, Major Gustav A.


Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolfe
Hartland, George A.
Rickards, George William


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.


Bonfield, John William
Hornby, Frank
Rutherford, John (Edmonton)


Boyd-Carpenter, Sir Archibald
Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)


Bracken, Brendan
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)


Braithwaite, Maj. A. N. (Yorks, E. R.)
Jackson, J. C. (Heywood & Radcliffe)
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Broadbent, Colonel John
Jesson, Major Thomas E.
Savery, Samuel Servington


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Knox, Sir Alfred
Scone, Lord


Burton, Colonel Henry Walter
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Unv., Belfast)


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Levy, Thomas
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Cook, Thomas A.
Macquisten, Frederick Alexander
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Cooke, Douglas
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Somerville, Annesley A (Windsor)


Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Craven-Ellis, William
Marsden, Commander Arthur
Stourton, Hon. John. J.


Daggar, George
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A. (P'dd'gt'n, S.)


Davison, Sir William Henry
Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)
Templeton, William P.


Dawson, Sir Philip
Moss, Captain H. J.
Thorp, Linton Theodore


Dixon, Rt. Hon. Herbert
Nall, Sir Joseph
Tinker, John Joseph


Donner, P. W.
Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Petersf'ld)
Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)


Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
North, Edward T.
Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)


Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst
Nunn, William
Wells, Sydney Richard


Fuller, Captain A. G.
Oman, Sir Charles William C
Whyte, Jardine Bell


George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)
Paling, Wilfred
Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)


Goff, Sir Park
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Gower, Sir Robert
Procter, Major Henry Adam
Wise, Alfred R.


Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Radford, E. A.
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)



Hanbury, Cecil
Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham-
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hanley, Dennis A.
Reid, William Allan (Derby)
Brigadier-General Sir Henry Croft and Lieut.-Commander Agnew.


NOES.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Glossop, C. W. H.
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Moreing, Adrian C.


Aske, Sir Robert William
Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Graves, Marjorie
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.


Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)


Balniel, Lord
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Normand, Rt. Hon. Wilfrid


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Ormsby-Gore. Rt. Hon. William G. A.


Bateman, A. L.
Groves, Thomas E.
Parkinson, John Allen


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Grundy, Thomas W.
Patrick, Colin M.


Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Pearson, William G.


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Guy, J. C. Morrison
Peat, Charles U.


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Penny, Sir George


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Hamilton, Sir R. W. (Orkney & Zetl'nd)
Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Harbord, Arthur
Price, Gabriel


Browne, Captain A. C.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)


Buchanan, George
Holdsworth, Herbert
Ratcliffe, Arthur


Butler, Richard Austen
Hopkinson, Austin
Rathbone, Eleanor


Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)
Horsbrugh, Florence
Rea, Walter Russell


Cape, Thomas
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)


Carver, Major William H.
Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
James, Wing.-Com. A. W. H.
Runge, Norah Cecil


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W)
Jenkins, Sir William
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


Chapman, Col. R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
John, William
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)
Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)
Soper, Richard


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Colman, N. C. D.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Spans, William Patrick


Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.
Kirkwood, David
Strauss, Edward A.


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Law, Sir Alfred
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S. W.)
Sutcliffe, Harold


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Lawson, John James
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Thorne, William James


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Dickie, John P.
Loftus, Pierce C.
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Dobble, William
Logan, David Gilbert
Wallace, John (Dunfermline)


Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
Lunn, William
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Dunglass, Lord
McCorquodale, M. S.
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Edwards, Charles
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
McEntee, Valentine L.
Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)


Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
McEwen, Captain J. H. F.
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Essenhigh, Reginald Clare
McKie, John Hamilton
Wilmot, John


Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)
Mainwaring, William Henry
Withers, Sir John James


Fermoy, Lord
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot
Womersley, Walter James


Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)


Fremantle, Sir Francis
Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)



Gillett, Sir George Masterman
Maxton, James
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Gledhill, Gilbert
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Lieut.-Colonel J. Sandeman Allen and Dr. McLean.

It being after Half-past Seven of the Clock, the Debate stood adjourned.

RETIRING PENSIONS.

7.39 p.m.

Mr. BANFIELD: I beg to move,
That this House calls upon His Majesty's Government to institute for all workers reaching the age of 60 years a scheme of pensions sufficient in amount to encourage the retirement from industry of these workers and thus relieve the volume of unemployment.
I think that this is the first time that the very important question of pensions at 60 years of age has been debated in this House. Since this Motion has appeared upon the Order Paper I have received a very considerable number of communications from all parts of the country, which shows conclusively that it is a subject in which a great number of people are vitally interested. The
necessity for the Motion rests fundamentally upon the question of unemployment. Times have changed. In the past we have had two or three Old Age Pensions Acts, but the position to-day is that, in spite of the possibility of bringing prosperity back to industry and commerce, it is an absolute certainty that the problem of unemployment will still remain. The invention of to-day is superseded by the invention of to-morrow, and the effect of that is an ever-increasing hard core of unemployment which grows greater and greater each year.
This phase of the problem of unemployment has from time to time received the attention of a great number of persons. It has been talked about in this and in the other direction, and, if it had been possible to offer sufficient inducement to people between the ages of 60 and 65 to leave the labour market and to be pensioned off, that would have been a very excellent thing. The other
evening, a gentleman representing the employers of this country made a speech over the wireless which was of significance in relation to this subject. He said:
There is nothing new about the idea of distributing employment among those for whom it is socially most desirable. The old age pensions have established the principle that when age diminishes strength and skill men and women shall no longer drudge, but shall be given support by the State. Why should not industry take upon itself the responsibility of organising its labour intake and outgoing?
When one comes to realise—[Interruption]—After that pleasant interlude perhaps I may be allowed to proceed.

Mr. LAWSON: On a point of Order. May I draw attention to the fact, Mr. Speaker, that a Government Whip is at the present moment engaged in trying to organise a count of the House? Is there any protection against that?

Mr. WOMERSLEY (Lord of the Treasury): On that point of Order. Is it not a fact that, at your request, I went to ask a certain hon. Member if he wished to take part in the Debate? That was the only errand that I was pursuing at the time when the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson), in a very unparliamentary manner, threatened me with certain things with which he dare not threaten me outside this House.

Mr. LAWSON: I challenged the hon. Gentleman with doing what he was doing. I heard him at it, and am prepared to assert, either inside or outside, that that is what he was doing.

Mr. ALAN TODD: That is absolutely untrue.

Mr. WOMERSLEY: The hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) challenged me with having been responsible for a count being called on Friday last. I had nothing whatever to do with that count being called; I was not on duty at the time; and I ask the hon. Member to withdraw that charge which he has made against me. Further, I was not engaged at all in the mission that he assumed. If he wants to know exactly what was taking place as regards the conversation at the moment that he came up, I may say that I was informing my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswinford (Mr. A. Todd) that in no circumstances did we want a count.

Mr. TODD: May I say that my hon. Friend was asking me if I wished to speak on this particular Motion? He did not mention a count at all.

Earl WINTERTON: I think it is right to say that my hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Womersley) came to me and asked if I wished to take part in the Debate. I was sitting in the vicinity, and not a single mention was made of a plot to call a count. Therefore, I think that in the interests of the House the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) ought to withdraw his statement.

Mr. LAWSON: I absolutely refuse to withdraw. I challenged the hon. Gentleman, and he did not for a moment deny it. Last Friday I saw him organising it, and challenged one of the Whips who was acting with him in the Lobby outside, and he did not deny it then.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) has challenged another hon. Member, who has denied the accusation. It is the common practice of the House, when an hon. Member makes an accusation against another hon. Member who denies it, that the accusation should be withdrawn.

Mr. TODD: May I say at once that the accusation is entirely untrue. My hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Womersley) came along to me and asked me if I wished to take part in the Debate.

Mr. SPEAKER: Then I must ask the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street to withdraw his statement.

Mr. LAWSON: If you ask me to do so, and as the hon. Member has made that statement, I am prepared to withdraw, and am sorry I made the statement. I made it on a rumour which has been running strongly through the House all the evening, and on the experience of what took place and what I myself saw organised on Friday. I withdraw the statement and apologise to you, Sir, for having made it.

7.50 p.m.

Mr. BANFIELD: I was drawing attention to the fact that, because of the introduction of new inventions, it was extremely likely that the number of unemployed would remain at a very high
figure, in my opinion very little less than 2,000,000 or 2,250,000. I would ask the House to remember that it is the men between 60 and 65 who are likely to become unemployed soonest, and whose chances of getting employment become steadily less as each year passes. I think, therefore, the House will agree that the question of unemployment comes in here, and that there is a case for taking people out of industry if possible. I think it will also be generally agreed that the present old age pension of 10s. per week is totally inadequate, and that even those who, with the best possible intentions and the highest possible ideals, brought in the old age pension originally, would now be the first to admit that in a great measure it has failed in its purpose.
The underlying idea of giving first of all an old age pension at 70, and then a contributory pension at 65, was that it would be doing something to provide for such people in their old age, but it has not worked out in that way. I am informed that, of 440,000 people receiving pensions under the Contributory Pensions Act of 1925, no fewer than 330,000 are working for varying periods during the year. Obviously the reason for that is that it is impossible for them to live on the 10s. per week which is provided as an old age pension. Having had some considerable experience in local government, and having served on a board of guardians for many years, I know that we were terribly disappointed to find that, instead of the majority of the old people being taken out of the Poor Law, they were still compelled to come to the Poor Law, and, since the abnormal rise in rents, more and more of them have come to the guardians to ask for relief and assistance because the 10s. is not sufficient. Speaking from my own personal experience in a small way among my own people, I know that, of 27 persons employed in a bakery here in London, no fewer than 11 are drawing the old age pension at 65 years of age and are still continuing to work. It is obvious, therefore, that the present old age pension is inadequate, and does not achieve the purpose that it was expected to achieve, and the effect is that, instead of being the means whereby decent people after many years could have a comfort-
able old age, it has fallen very short indeed of that ideal.
As regards unemployment, we are not only faced in industry to-day with the question of the machine, but also with the situation created by amalgamations of companies, by trusts, and by cartels. In my own constituency, in the town of Wednesbury, a very few years ago, the prosperity of the town depended upon the production of tubes. There was a great works there, employing 4,000 or 5,000 men altogether. An amalgamation took place, the whole of this big firm's business was brought into an amalgamation, and the effect was that that works was closed down and 4,000 or 5,000 people were thrown out of employment. Many of them have never had a day's work from that day to this, and obviously those who have suffered most have been the old men.
I want, if I can, to point out to the Government that the whole system of old age pensions needs overhauling. The pension at 70 is bad in itself. Among the many letters that I have received in connection with this matter is one from a woman whose husband is about 70 years of age. He was never a contributor to the old age pension under the Act of 1925. She herself is somewhere about 65 or 66. He is unable to work. He has an old age pension of 10s. a week, and she is obliged to go out caretaking, and the result of that woman of 65 or 66 going out to work to keep her sick husband is that, under the rules governing the pension at 70, his pension is immediately cut to 4s. a week. I want to submit to the House that there is a case for overhauling the whole question of pensions, and, further, that there is a very strong case indeed for realising that, besides insured persons, there are other classes who are in need of provision for their old age. There is the professional class, there are the small tradesmen, and I think that, if there is one thing more than another that causes bitterness in the minds of many people of the lower middle classes, it is that in connection with social services they are left high and dry in nearly every respect. I would put it to the House that it should be possible to bring in a proper pension scheme which would cover every section of the community that cared to contribute to it.
I want now to say something about the people between 60 and 65. I do not pro-
pose to suggest to the Government that a pension should be paid at 60 unconditionally. The first condition must be that, if people take their pension at 60, they must absolutely retire from industry—in other words, that the pension should be optional at 60 years of age. If I am to achieve the object which I have set forth in this Motion, I must get as many people out of industry as I possibly can. I believe that millions of pounds now spent in unemployment pay would be better spent in pensions for the aged, that we are spending the money in many instances at the wrong end, and that it might be possible—and I think it should be possible—to pension men and women at 60 and take them out of industry and to bring in the young people to do the work of the community, the work of commerce, and the work of the nation during those years when they are most fit and able to do it. The gentleman who spoke on the wireless for the employers the other day used some very wise words. He said, speaking of people retiring at 60:
You can retire, and during our prosperous years we will, with some assistance from the State, make provision for your future. Even for machinery we are quite used to setting aside a certain sum for depreciation, so that we need not work plant to the last possible turn of its parts. Some manufacturers still use 50-year old plant, but the progressive producer realises that it does not pay. How much stronger is the argument in favour of making provision through industry for industry's retired personnel. In time we shall realise that it does not pay to work people when they are too old merely because it has not occurred to us to plan a human depreciation fund so that they can be given an adequate pension at the right age.
Those words can be endorsed by a great many men and women of good will irrespective of party altogether, and I heartily endorse them.
There is another point. We have pension schemes for certain people—for municipal employés, civil servants and teachers—and certain private firms have superannuation schemes for their work people. In this respect the co-operative movement sets an example which might well be followed by a good many private firms. These classes of people cover nearly 4,000,000 persons. Their retiring pensions are the one bright thing that they hold on to during the whole of their working days. They feel that they have a sense of security because they have a pension at the end. If it is a good thing
for the 3,000,000 or 4,000,000 persons, surely it cannot be a bad thing for the nation as a whole. Municipal employés are pleased to have the chance of contributing weekly to a pension scheme, and I believe a vast number of our people would be pleased to have the chance. If it were possible to give an adequate pension to ensure a really comfortable old age for men and women, a good deal of the scraping and saving of comparatively small sums need no longer take place. It is somewhat pitiable to see the efforts and the sacrifices that are made, and many times they fail in the long run. This money, if it were not hoarded and put on one side, might be spent with advantage to the nation as a whole. We are beginning to learn that the true patriots are not those who hoard money up, but those who spend it and make trade. A very considerable sum of money indeed would be made free by an adequate pension scheme.
Having said as much as I have, I suppose hon. Members will be asking themselves the question that they will be asking me later on: Where is the money to come from? What is going to be the cost of this? We are here as a very responsible authority, and we must really consider how much it is going to cost. I am suggesting a national contributory old age pensions scheme. I believe it should be possible to bring in every one who wishes to contribute with the help of the Government and the employer and a direct contribution by the people concerned. I should like to quote Mr. Ernest Bevin, the secretary to the Transport and General Workers Union. He says—and I agree with him—that he would be in favour of direct taxation, but so vital is the problem that he would not quarrel with a contributory scheme. He suggests that, if we could work this thing out on an actuarial basis, it might be possible to get a scheme which would give £1 a week to men and women at 60 years of age optionally, and which would give to a man and his wife, irrespective of the age of the wife if the man achieved the age of 60 or 65, at least 35s. a week, and if this could be done—and we suggest that it might—on a total Government, employer and workman contribution of 1s. 6d.—compare that with the 2s. 6d.
that Unemployment Insurance costs us now—if Mr. Bevin is not hopelessly wrong the scheme that I am putting forward would in all probability deliver the goods and would be sufficient to induce people to leave employment and come out of the labour market.
It may be said that people will not be induced to come out of the industry for a joint pension for man and wife of 35s. a week, but I am fairly positive that you would get a very large proportion indeed. The average wage for many classes of people for 52 weeks in a year is not more than round about £2 5s. or £2 6s. Here you get a thing which gives them security—52 weeks in a year at 35s.—at a period in their lives when in all probability their children have left home and their responsibilities are simply their two selves. I believe it would really induce many of them to leave industry, and it would relieve the unemployment fund of some millions of pounds, it would relieve the sick fund under the National Health Insurance of many more millions, and I believe on balance it would be found eventually that the cost was not as great as might be feared. I am not afraid to face the figures. In answer to a question during the time of the late Government, Miss Lawrence said the extra cost of a pension scheme—not of this kind, because she did not know about it being a contributory scheme—would be about £83,000,000 per annum.

Mr. HOLDSWORTH: Was not that in addition to the amount already expended?

Mr. BANFIELD: I should not like to answer the hon. Member definitely.

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hore-Belisha): Can the hon. Member give me the date of that question and answer or read the terms of it?

Mr. BANFIELD: Miss Lawrence was asked the question in 1929 and replied as follows:
As regards the first part of the question, many communications have been received suggesting extensions of the Contributory Pensions Act. As regards the second part, it is estimated that the net additional annual cost of reducing the pension age from 65 to 60 and increasing the rate of pension to £1 per week would be approximately £83,000,000 in the first years, and would increase rapidly.
It is only fair to say that in all probability that figure was given on the assumption that the £1 per week would be paid to everyone at 60. Apparently the question of making it optional was not included in that answer. The optional Clause must of necessity reduce the suggested amount, to some extent at any rate.
To summarise what I have said, I think it is agreed that, in view of the problem of unemployment, in view of the fact that unemployment is not likely ever again to come down to normal proportions for the reasons I have given, it would be advisable to consider taking certain people out of industry. Secondly, the present Old Age Pension schemes are totally inadequate. They do not work. They do not do the things that they were expected to do. Thirdly, a contributory scheme such as I have suggested is, at any rate, well worth the serious attention of the House. I hope the House, although it is small now, will not believe that this is a thing that does not matter. In my opinion it is very urgent, it should receive a great deal of attention, and, above everything else, it should not be dismissed with a wave of the hand on the ground that it is impossible and that the cost cannot be met. We have all lived long enough to see the impossible made possible. I believe that here is a case in which those who say this is impossible will live to believe with me that it can be made possible.
The Amendment suggests that the Motion, if put into effect, would be another drag upon industry. We are always told that. When I fought for shorter hours for the people in my trade, I was told that it would throw every one out of work. The suggestion has always been that every social improvement is going to send industry to the dogs. Even industry has some responsibility towards its workers. Over and over again men who have done 30, 40 and 45 years' good, honest service when they come to 55 or 60 are ruthlessly scrapped, because they are no longer as efficient as they should be. Industry ought to be proud to take some part in a scheme of this kind. It ought to recognise its responsibilities. I believe that there is a feeling in all ranks of society that here is a thing which should appeal to all men and women. I wish to make it clear that it is not a class scheme or one exclusively for those who work for wages and are in insurance. It
must be a bigger thing than that. It must be a real national old age pension scheme embracing men and women of all classes who care to contribute. If we are able to do something on these lines we shall bring happiness to people in their old age, provide work for young people when they ought to be at work, and take the old men from work when they should be in retirement. If we are able to bring peace, happiness and prosperity into the homes of our people, it will be a job worthy of the House of Commons.

8.17 p.m.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: I beg to second the Motion.
When the idea of old age pensions was first advocated it was treated with derision on the score of expense. Yet the scheme was inaugurated after many years of agitation, and it has been developed to an extent of which Parliament in the years before the War never dreamed. I know that the great stumbling block is expense. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury at once seized on to that side of the question. He wanted to know the reply given to a Parliamentary question, and my hon. Friend quoted the reply, which stated that £80,000,000 would be required to bring the old veterans away from toil after having given 46 years of service to their country. A man who serves in the British Army or Navy for 21 years receives a pension, but here are men and women upon whom everything in the country depends, the Army, the Navy, the Police, the Civil Service, teachers and Post Office workers. They all depend upon the workers in the workshops, shipyards, factories, the mines, the fields, the docks and the transport services. These are the producers and the men who do the work. They are the actual producers of the necessaries and luxuries of life. These individuals have given of their best, their youth and their manhood, for 46 years. In fact, it is no exaggeration to say that they have done so from 14 years of age to 60 years of age. We are asking that they should be rewarded after having rendered valuable services which cannot be estimated in pounds, shillings and pence. They have built this country. The great upholders of this country say that this is the mightiest Empire on which the sun has ever shone, and the richest. We are asking that the richest Empire should do
its duty by those who have made this Empire possible.
I am in favour of a non-contributory scheme of pensions, and I have always advocated such a scheme. I have put it in my election address time and again. I have advocated old age pensions at 60 and an adequate pension at that. Ten shillings a week is absolutely ridiculous. Why do we treat our old veterans of industry in this fashion? We claim to be a mighty Empire and to have all the brains, and to act so humanely that no foreigner dare question our humanity, and yet this is how we treat our own kith and kin at home after they have given 50 years' service toiling in the mines, the shipyards, the docks, and the engineering shops. Think of the colliers deep down in the bowels of the earth, some in Lancashire, working in places where horses cannot exist. We ask that those individuals should receive an adequate pension. I support entirely the Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Banfield) when he asks for a pension of £1 a week for a man, and 35s. for man and wife immediately the breadwinner reaches the age of 60, irrespective of the age of his wife. The hon. Member told the House that he had been inundated with letters from people explaining their hardships. The same experience has been my lot, because I recently drew a place in the Ballot in this House, which is the reason why I am seconding the Motion. I drew third place on that occasion, and therefore I was not able to bring forward my old age pensions Motion.
I ask the House seriously to consider this proposal, even supposing such a great sum as £80,000,000 is involved. We should only be giving the £80,000,000 to those who produced it. Nobody else has produced it. Not only did they produce the £80,000,000, but, I would have the House remember, they also produce £350,000,000 of War Debt interest every year which this country can afford to pay to the individuals who lent the money with which to carry on the War. That is not paid to the individuals who were slaughtered or maimed, and to those who were blinded. We do not even give them adequate pensions. We do not even give adequate pensions to the widows of the men who sacrificed their lives, who made the supreme sacrifice for their country; indeed we have reduced them. The war debt was money
lent by individuals. It was something they could do without. It did not impoverish them in any way to lend that money. The lending of it did not take away their breakfasts or their dinners. It was no sacrifice to them; nevertheless, we pay to them £1,000,000 a day in interest, and that is to go on for ever, until we get a Socialist Government that will end it once and for all. Until then we have to go on paying to these individuals £1,000,000 a day. That is a first charge on industry. Those are the great patriots. Did they follow the example of the Lord President of the Council, who surrendered £250,000 of his War Loan to the country? He gave them a striking example of what the true patriot would do. How many followed his example? None that we know of. If they had done so we should have had £350,000,000 a year for our social services. All the things that we demand in order to ameliorate the terrible conditions that prevail in the country could have been provided.
Think of the lot of the old man and the old woman to-day. It is our privilege, the privilege of those who are physically and mentally fit, to defend those who are not able to defend themselves. It is the privilege of this House to accept the Motion that has been placed before them in a very reasonable speech, asking nothing revolutionary but something which the country could do. Let hon. Members not forget one of the most revolutionary things that has happened during the office of the present Government. When I go to the country and I am asked: "Shall we have to wait until the General Election?" I say "No." The most powerful thing in the country is public opinion. Public opinion stood by the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he reduced the interest from 5 per cent. to 3½ per cent. The same thing could be done again. If we reduced the interest to 2½ per cent. we should have the money right away not only for old age pensions at 60, but money that would augment all our social services, including the giving of £1 a week for the unemployed man, 30s. a week for an unemployed man and his wife, and 5s. a week for the unemployed man's child.
We are told by some individuals that you cannot do these things under a dying
capitalism. I am not concerned about capitalism. My business is to smite capitalism, to get concessions, and I believe it is possible to get them on the Floor of the House of Commons. I want to usher in Socialism not in the midst of chaos and revolution but in the midst of plenty. We have plenty now. We have everything in superabundance. All that is required is the brain to produce a method of distributing the great power of productivity of which we are all the joint heirs. The suggestion which we make to-night is one of the ways of doing that. To give adequate pensions is one means of distributing our great productivity. When one goes to the workshops or to the mines to-day we know that in every branch of industry speed is the order of the day. If ever there was a time in the history of the world when it was a case of manhood's active might, that time is now. As a result of this speed, employers of labour have no alternative under the competitive system but to take the most efficient workers that they can possibly get. When a member of my class turns 50, never mind 60, he dreads losing his job. It is a constant nightmare to him. It is because we know these things that we suggest that they should get old age pensions at 60, adequate pensions. We suggest that our own people, our own kith and kin, our race, when they have worked from 14 years of age to 60 years of age—remembering that the allotted span of human life according to the Bible is three-score years and ten—should receive a pension. All we are asking is that after having served the community for 46 years they shall be allowed 10 years of leisure before they roll off this mortal coil. Surely that is not too much to ask.
It is not as though we had not other sections of the community as an example. When I was in the workshop I always felt that I was associated with individuals, no better than myself and no worse, who knew that when they came to a certain age they would be able to retire with a comfortable pension, comparatively speaking. Why should a school teacher have a pension and a worker, an engineer and a labourer, have none? Why should not the manual worker, the artisan, have an adequate pension. I come from a great shipbuilding and engineering constituency. What
has been the result of the policy of successive Governments in this country? They decided that the best thing to do in existing conditions was to rationalise the shipyards, and as a result several shipyards in my constituency have been shut down. Here are men, the finest workmen in the world, who have built some of the finest ships that sail the seven seas, who have been employed for 30, 40 and 50 years, thrown on the street because rationalisation comes along; and all they get is 15s. 3d. per week. That is their reward. The Prime Minister says that there is no social service comparable with ours; that is nothing of which to be proud. Why should I as an engineer have 15s. 3d. and a policeman £3. The school teacher, the civil servant, the Post Office worker, the municipal employé, all have pensions, but the actual worker upon whom they all depend is thrown on the scrap heap. He could not be treated worse if he was an enemy of the country, and if he was a criminal be would get better treatment than he does for being a decent, hard-working Briton.
I propose to keep my remarks short as many other hon. Members desire to speak. This Debate is of vital importance to tens of thousands of as decent men and women as ever drew the breath of life. It should be our duty, indeed our joy, to alleviate their distress. All kinds of workers, no matter whether they are labourers, skilled workers, or semi-skilled workers, all those who have rendered service to the State have a Heaven-born right to be adequately maintained by the State; not as a charity. They have expended their energies and abilities in order to make Britain what she is to-day, and if Britain can afford to pay nearly one million pounds a day as interest on War debt, surely she might easily devote half that amount to prevent the terrible injustice which is being done at the moment to these old people. Here is an opportunity for the Government, the most powerful Government of all time in Britain. They have such a huge majority that they can push forward anything they desire, and if they desire to push this proposal through it would go through. Think of the joy that a Measure like this would bring. Think of the many homes which are desolate at the moment, and of the fathers and mothers who have given this country its youth. If the Govern-
ment would do this they would do something to justify their existence. Let the Government agree to set up an inquiry into the question, it need not occupy any great length of time, and let the country know the result of that inquiry before this Parliament turns down a proposal which is supported by many people throughout the country.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. CROOM-JOHNSON: I beg to move, in line 1, to leave out from "House," to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
is of opinion that it would be impossible to administer a scheme of retirement pensions at 60 years so as to make them conditional on actual and continued retirement, and that the heavy additional burden which such a scheme would impose upon the taxpayer and upon industry would check the present improvement and would diminish the amount of employment which industry is able to provide.
The House does well, after having spent many hours recently in discussing the question of unemployment insurance, to turn for a moment or two to the gravity of the problem which lies underneath those discussions. I think we ought to be grateful to the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Banfield) for having introduced this Motion, not only for that reason, but also because this suggestion of pensions for old people at 60 is one which has been floating about for a long time without much critical examination of it; and it is certainly the first time since I have been a Member of the House that the matter has been debated here. The hon. Member put his case with great fairness from his point of view, and with such arguments as I have no doubt appealed to him and indeed would appeal to a certain extent to all of us who see in the world around us things we much desire to have otherwise. The speeches of both the Mover and the Seconder did credit to the softness of their hearts. Perhaps as I have spoken about their anatomy for one moment I may leave it there.
I want to examine this proposal and see where it is likely to take us. I recognise at the very outset that the Proposer and the Seconder do not agree between themselves as to what is, of course, one of the fundamental points which has to be faced. Are we to have a scheme which is contributory or a scheme which is not? I have heard it
advanced on many occasions from Labour and Socialist platforms that contributory pensions were things which ought to go, and of course it is going to make an enormous difference to the amount of money involved. But let us start at the very root of the proposal. Moving about the world and representing, as I do, a constituency which contains an overwhelming mass of working people, I do not recognise these old people at the age of 60. Indeed, while the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. Kirkwood) was speaking I took the trouble to look up his age, and I do not recognise him, and I am sure he does not recognise himself, as a person who ought to have an old age pension.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: It is perfectly true that I am a few years over 60, but the difference between me and those for whom I am appealing is that it is over 20 years since I worked in the workshop. If I had been working in the workshop till now I would have been ready for retirement. That makes all the difference.

Mr. CROOM-JOHNSON: The hon. Member has the advantage of me, because I am forced to work in my workshop every day of my life, and I am still doing it. But let us look at the proposal again. Who are these people who are said to be too old at 60 and who ought to be given the opportunity of retiring? So far as I am able to ascertain, ordinary working men—I include myself in that category, and all my friends in the various professions and industries who are not passengers in the world—are fond of their work and desire to do it. The suggestion here is that at the age of 60 these people are to be given an option. What working man, using that expression in the sense in which I have just used it, at the age of 60, if he is in full vigour, is going to agree to cut down his earnings to any substantial extent whatever? If the man is not fit for work, if the man is not able to work, if the man has lost his job, then he is no use within the terms of this Resolution for the purpose of throwing up a job for someone else to take.
Therefore, if you are going to get any advantage out of this scheme from that point of view, you must first of all predicate that a man is in a job, that he can keep his job, that he would be able to
go on working and would be able to make his earnings until such time as he comes under one or other of the existing pensions which are available for him. I do not know how many of those individuals would be likely to take advantage of the offer if it were made. I understand that the figure of £1 a week is suggested. I suppose the agricultural worker is to be included? Workers in the agricultural districts are not in the least inclined to exchange their present figure, which in my county is only 30s. 6d. a week, for £1 a week.

Mr. BANFIELD: I am sure the hon. and learned Member would not deliberately mislead the House. I made it very clear indeed that for a man and wife the figure would be 35s. per week, and I now suggest that the agricultural labourer at 60 years of age, with a wife, would be very pleased indeed to retire from agriculture on a pension of 35s. a week.

Mr. CROOM-JOHNSON: I think that is highly likely. But is it suggested that if a man is 60 and his wife is 35 the pension is to be 35s. a week, or that if the man dies at 70 and his wife is 45 she is to go on receiving her pension for the rest of her life, irrespective of whether or not she has contributed to one of the existing schemes? If that is the proposal the figures given are wholly fallacious, and the cost will go up with almost every word that is uttered from the benches opposite. But what else is to happen? Is industry to be deprived of individuals over 60, in all walks of life apparently, as long as they have been workers? Is industry to lose its most experienced foremen and charge hands? There is the shepherd, very often a man who knows the countryside and knows the habit of his animals better than any other individual. There are the men in various professions, the managing clerks, and so on. Are all these people at 60 years of age to have dangled in front of them the opportunity of going? If they take the opportunity, industry is going to be deprived of a great deal of the sane, balanced, experienced judgment which you get not only in people at the top but in people all the way down. What else is to happen? Is the proposal to stop at people who work only with their hands? Are Members of Parliament who devote their whole lives with great assiduity to politics to be there?

Mr. KIRKWOOD: No.

Mr. CROOM-JOHNSON: The hon. Member says "No"; the option then is not to be extended to my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood)? It sounds an astonishing proposal. What is the next stage? Have any hon. Members worked this out at all? I gather that the system is to be under a strict condition. How are you going to carry out a strict condition? Once a man is 60 he is to have the old age pension and he is to do no more work. I can imagine no one more miserable than the man in any walk of life, be he well educated or not so well educated, be he a man at the top or a man without any responsibility at all, who finds himself at the age of 60 still vigorous, but unable to work, and, according to the hon. Member for Wednesbury, in danger of losing his pension if he dares to do a stroke. That is indeed, a new view of economics——

Mr. BANFIELD: It is.

Mr. CROOM-JOHNSON: And a new view of the dignity of labour. Then there is the next step. Who is going to look after the man to see that he does not work? Hon. Members opposite have quoted figures, but have they included anything for administration? Who is going to watch to see whether somebody, be he rich or poor, who thinks he is unobserved, is going to do a job of work although he has passed the age of 60. If such a one is found, what is to be the penalty? Is he to lose the pension for a period or is he to lose it altogether? I gather that he is to lose it altogether. There is a pretty prospect for the healthy man of 60. After all the years which I understand the Socialist party have spent in working upon this problem, I expected that we would hear this evening, in some sort of reasonable detail, what they proposed to do.

Mr. LOGAN: We have not finished yet.

Mr. CROOM-JOHNSON: Is there to be an army of inspectors? Are the inspectors themselves to retire at 60? What is to happen to them?

Mr. KIRKWOOD: rose——

Mr. CROOM-JOHNSON: My hon. Friend opposite will pardon me if I do not give way again, but I am afraid his interruptions are in a language which I am wholly unable to comprehend.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: On a point of Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I am not going to allow a Member of this House to insult the language that I speak. I speak the language of the country boys who stood betwixt you and the onrushing Germans. Do not start to insult the Scottish tongue. I would allow neither you nor any man who draws the breath of life to do so. If you talk fair and be honest, then I will discuss with you as long as you like, but if you are going to try to insult my countrymen I will let you know all about it.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I did not understand the hon. and learned Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Croom-Johnson) to be in any way insulting to the language of the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood). I merely understood the hon. and learned Member to say that he was not very well versed in it, a state of affairs I must confess I share.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: That is his misfortune.

Mr. CROOM-JOHNSON: It was not my intention to offend the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs or to say a single word which would be a reflection on the gallant country to which he belongs. I was pleading my own ignorance.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: I will accept that.

Mr. CROOM-JOHNSON: If I were to reply to him in the language of my mother's, which happens to be Welsh, he would find himself in the same difficulty. To return to the subject of the Motion, has anybody thought of the wives of these men? What are they going to say about seeing a hale and hearty man knocking about the house all day long, receiving £1 a week pension, when his earnings would have been three or four times that amount. Hon. Members opposite might go to a mass meeting of women in some working-class district and ask them what they thought about this proposal? I have little doubt of what the women in my part of the country would say.
A great deal of argument has been addressed to the question of cost. Do hon. Members opposite still think that there is an unlimited amount of money available in the world for projects of this sort. Is it to be a non-contributory
scheme? Is the money to be obtained by taxation? [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] Hon. Members cheer that suggestion. Do they realise that taxation and unemployment go side by side? To whatever country in Europe you go, you find the lowest state of the poor people in those countries where taxation is highest. Where taxation goes up, then of necessity—for people cannot spend their money twice over—economies have to be made, jobs are left undone and people have to be dismissed. The sooner members of the Socialist party get out of their heads the notion that we are going to make everybody happier and better off by piling on taxation, the sooner they will realise the way to deal with some of the root causes of unemployment.
If it is to be an actuarial scheme as we are told you will have to wait until you have piled up out of contributions a fund sufficient to make the payment of the pensions reasonably certain. If you are going to start your pension fund on an actuarial basis, it will have to be contributory and based on expectation of life, and I fear the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs and myself will have ceased to trouble this House long before such a scheme can be put into operation. Of course, I am sure my hon. Friends opposite would have no difficulty at all in getting rid of that objection. They would take the fund out of more taxation, which suggests that they have already forgotten, if indeed they ever learned, the lessons of those perilous months before August, 1931.
I am not going into figures, but in 1929 after the General Election of that year, when some of the pledges given in Socialist addresses to the electors were being examined, it was stated in this House that the cost of giving pensions of £1 a week to everybody over 60, was estimated at £375,000,000 per annum. In one polling district of my constituency an offer was made by a person—who was I am sure quite unauthorised to speak for my extremely fair-minded Labour opponent—not of this miserable £1 a week, but of £2 per week. I was implored by those who were taking me round, as an apprentice to this industry of politics, to go there and answer the suggestions which were being made. I refused to do so. It seemed to me that
those who believed in a promise that when the Labour party came into office after the 1929 Election, everybody was going to get £2 a week at the age of 60, would certainly not have sufficient good sense to vote for me. I left it alone, and my people in the county of Somerset did not choose to accept such a statement. That being so, the canvasser—again wholly unauthorised, I know—went round and added to the previous offer the offer of a bottle of whisky per week as well. Of course, that completely finished that particular issue. That shows the danger of suggesting things of this kind, which are really quite impracticable.
It is not a question of lack of sympathy with these people who fall by the way in any industry, it is not a question of not realising the motives which inspire the two hon. Members who have introduced this Motion. I am forced to look at this question through the spectacles of what I hope are common sense and political possibility. Looking at this Motion in that way, fully realising and accepting the motives which have caused the two hon. Members to introduce it, I have come to the conclusion that it is impossible to administer such a scheme, that the heavy additional burdens that it would impose on the taxpayer and on industry are burdens which they could not bear, and that the right method to pursue in order to grapple with the unemployment question is to continue to endeavour to foster trade and industry by every means in our power.

9.7 p.m.

Lord SCONE: I beg to second the Amendment.
If all members of the Socialist party at all times put forward their proposals with the sincerity and moderation that we have heard to-night, their stock, both in this House and in the country, would be considerably higher than it is. No one will question that the two hon. Members who have brought forward this Motion are perfectly sincere, both in their desire to help the aged members of the working classes and in their belief that such help is possible in the form which they have suggested, but unfortunately this proposal, which on the surface is one which would commend itself to everyone, when one examines it more closely is seen to be absolutely impossible of ful-
filment as things are to-day or as they are likely to be for a very long time to come.
First of all, as regards the administrative side of the question, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bridgewater (Mr. Croom-Johnson) has torn a few holes in the delicate fabric there, and I hope that without very much delay I can tear it completely to fragments. If all the members of the working classes and others are to contribute to this scheme, as I understand is the intention of the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Banfield), what is to happen to those who at the age of 60 do not wish to retire but who have been paying their contributions for many years past? That has not been touched upon. Are they going to be able to take those contributions out in a lump sum? Hardly, I imagine. Are the contributions to be forfeit to the State? That does not seem very fair. What then is to be the position? Furthermore, how on earth is one going to ensure, as my hon. and learned Friend has said, that those persons who do retire at the age of 60 are really going to be taken out of the labour market at all? The staff of inspectors necessary to supervise this scheme properly would be enormous and unworkable, and if we are not going to have such a staff of inspectors, either the elderly people are to be permitted to take up other employment, and so defeat the whole object of the scheme, or else the Government are to depend upon the Paul Pry and Nosey Parker activities of these people's neighbours in order to get information which would lead to a conviction; and I submit that neither of these alternatives is workable or worthy of this country.
We have not the slightest reason to suppose that, even were workers to take advantage of this scheme in large numbers, that would mean automatically that there would be an equal number of vacancies in industry. A very good simile was put to me to-day. Industry cannot be compared to a cab rank, on which, as the first cab moves off the rank, the bottom one moves up, and room is left for others to come on to it. There are a great many elderly people in industry who are maintained there by their employers simply because the employers do not wish to get rid of them after many years of good service. Sometimes they
are still fulfilling their normal duties, at other times their duties may be described as little more than sinecures, so that many of the vacancies which they would create would not be real vacancies at all, and a great number of them might not be filled up, or if some of them were, perhaps two new men would be brought in to do the work that six older men had been doing previously. I cannot see how it is possible to administer such a scheme satisfactorily, and I think the hon. Members responsible for bringing it forward would have been well advised to work out the details a little more fully if they expected us to pay really serious attention to it.
It is when we come to the financial side that the scheme really shows itself with all its many defects. As my hon. and learned Friend has said, there seems to be a complete lack of unanimity among the party opposite as to whether this scheme should or should not be contributory. I am very much disappointed that they have not thought fit to bring forward a few more figures in regard to the whole scheme than they have done. It is really very difficult to criticise anything so unformed, so nebulous, and so tenuous in character. I have put in a considerable amount of work getting out figures myself, and I propose to give a few to the House, reluctantly, as I know the House does not like figures, but it is necessary to give them to-night in order that the House may see how impossible the scheme would be from the financial point of view. The Minister of Health a few days ago, in answer to a question, said there were some 720,000 persons insured under the National Health Insurance Acts between the ages of 60 and 65. To these, for the purposes of this scheme, would have to be added men over 70 already drawing old age pensions to the number of 648,000, women over 70 to the number of 930,000, men drawing pensions under the Act of 1925 between the ages of 65 and 70 to the number of 437,000, and women of a similar description to the number of 262,000, the grand total being only 3,000 less than 3,000,000.
These figures are now mostly about a year old, although they were the latest available, from which the not unnatural conclusion to draw is that they are considerably larger to-day. To take them at the round figure of 3,000,000, in order to provide pensions of £1 per week for these
people would require the following outlay: for those of 60 to 65 who at present have no pension, it would cost £37,500,000; to raise the pensions of the other four classes to which I have alluded would cost, respectively, £16,000,000, £24,000,000, £11,000,000 and £6,000,000. I omit the odd hundred thousands. In short, the total amount that would have to be raised would be no less than £96,000,000 a year. If one goes a little further and takes it at 30s., as I understand that a man and his wife are to get 35s., the total amount would be——

Mr. HOLDSWORTH: Is that amount in addition to the sums now paid?

Lord SCONE: That is so. If we take it that everyone would get 30s., the total is raised to the not inconsiderable sum of £175,000,000. It would probably not be as much as that, because we cannot say how many couples would be receiving 35s., but the figure would run to something over £100,000,000 per annum—say £120,000,000. That money has to be found somewhere, and this is where I fear I must cross swords somewhat violently with the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood). I must tell him in language which will not be understood by the hon. and learned Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Croom-Johnson) that the figures he gave were "fushionless havers." He seemed to be under the impression that by reducing the interest on the National Debt by 1 per cent. enough money could he produced. When the conversion scheme took place and the rate of interest on War Loan was lowered by 1½ per cent., the gross saving was £30,000,000 and the net saving £23,000,000. How a reduction of 1 per cent. would bring in £80,000,000 passes my comprehension.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: The other sum is good enough to be getting on with.

Lord SCONE: If the hon. Member will give the figures a little closer attention he will see that they really cannot be considered seriously. How is this £120,000,000 to be produced? We have heard only the vaguest statements from the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Banfield) as to the size of the contributions, but it is obvious that the contributions could not be on a uniform basis. Rates of wages will have to be taken into
consideration, and certainly age will have to be considered. There again I think the House has some legitimate cause to complain that we have not been given any fuller details as to how a contributory scheme would be worked out. Assume the figure to be £120,000,000—which I think is a reasonable minimum assumption—and assume that the sum to be raised is to be divided equally among employers, employed and the State, £40,000,000 would have to come from the employers which, of course, would be a cause of rejoicing to hon. Members opposite, £40,000,000 from the workers, which they would not find particularly amusing, and £40,000,000 from the State out of the already overburdened taxpayer. If, on the other hand, we adopt the suggestions of the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs and have no contribution whatever, it is obvious that the State would have to provide the whole of the money. I submit that that is absolutely out of the question at the present time.
I think I shall not be out of order if I ask the House to bear in mind that this would not be the only proposal in the nature of extensions of the social services which would be brought forward by a Socialist Government when such a calamity overtakes this country, which I agree will be a long time yet.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: That is a hope. Hope springs eternal in the human breast.

Lord SCONE: We know that the Socialist party is committed to very many pledges. Take just a few of these——

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I think that we had better leave the question of other pledges to some future occasion.

Lord SCONE: The only point I want to make is that this is only one of many pledges of the Socialist party, and that the extra expense a Socialist Government would incur would be something like £200,000,000, besides this trifle of £120,000,000. We know that the Socialist party is opposed to indirect taxation. This vast additional sum of anything up to £300,000,000 is therefore presumably to be produced in two ways—by a reduction of the Defence Forces and the reduction of debt. These two items could produce at most a hundred, more likely fifty or so,
millions, and the rest would have to be raised by direct taxation. The policy of the Socialist party is best described by the vulgar but forcible American expression, "soaking the rich." They must have come to realise the law of diminishing returns and to know that once you get to a certain stage in direct taxation every additional sixpence or shilling that is put on the Income Tax will not bring in more but will bring in less. The fact remains that it will be impossible at the present time without doing the gravest injury to the country to produce the £120,000,000 which would be necessary to finance the scheme.
Even if it were on a contributory basis, which would not be acceptable to the majority of the Socialist party, who are much more unreasonable than the hon. Member for Wednesbury, the direct charge of £40,000,000 on the taxpayer and the indirect charge of £80,000,000 would inevitably mean more unemployment and greater misery. Even though such a pension scheme might be set up, it would not last very long because the money could not be found with which to pay the pensions. We know what happened in 1931 and how near we were to reaching a point where there would not be money in the Treasury with which to pay unemployment benefit. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] That is perfectly true. I do not know whether the applause is sincere or derisive. I suspect the latter, but the fact is that at the present time we could not hope to produce the money necessary to finance the scheme. Although one wishes to do everything possible to alleviate that distress with which unfortunately many older members of the working-class are too often faced, one must consider whether it is altogether an advantage for the working people of this country to have everything done for them from the cradle to the grave.
The whole tendency of recent years—and every Government has to bear some share of the blame—has been to spoon feed the people of this country. As far as we can see, the idea of the Socialist party is that there should be unlimited pensions and insurance and unlimited everything so that the workers may not have to move a hand for themselves and
so that the sober and honest may be in no better position when they grow old than the thriftless and those who have not shown themselves at all satisfactory throughout their working lives. If we are to admit an argument, of that sort, I am afraid that it means good-bye to the dignity of labour, and the dignity of labour is something——

Mr. KIRKWOOD: If the Noble Lord would give way to me for a moment, I should like to ask him if he has any of this dignity of labour about him. Has he ever done any labour?

An Hon. Member: Yes, probably much more than you have.

Lord SCONE: I have; quite a lot of it in various directions, with various tools and implements. But whatever my record may be, it is not particularly relevant to this discussion. The whole fact is that we on this side of the House are just as sympathetic with the objects detailed in this Motion as are the party opposite. We wish to do everything that can possibly be done to make the lot of the workers easier, young or old, in employment or out of employment. On the other hand, unlike the party opposite, we face facts, and we recognise that this scheme is entirely impracticable at present. We believe that those who have brought it forward are sincere, and it is just because I hope that the remainder of the Socialist party are sincere that I trust that this suggestion will not be used as ground-bait to spread before the electors at the next General Election. If it is so used, it will not be honest then, though it is honest now. It will only be a method of inducing people to believe that the return of a Socialist Government is the only way towards an extension of the social services to an extent which has hitherto been undreamt of.
This country has the largest, best, and most expensive social services in the whole world. I am glad that hon. Members opposite admit that. If we look throughout the world, where do we find old age pensions, and if we find them, what is their extent? Where do we find widows' pensions? Where do we find insurance systems worked out as well as they are in this country? I submit that before hon. Members opposite indulge—as they often have before, though they
have not done so to-night—in tirades against the social system that exists in this country, they should count their blessings. If they do, they will find that this country, where that capitalism which they abuse is still in existence and in possession of power, has done more in the way of social legislation for the worker than any other country has done where there has been a Socialist Government for many years and where the workers have complete control. With the objects brought forward in this Motion we have the fullest sympathy, but my hon. Friend must realise that for the present they must remain a dream which, though it may be fulfilled in the future, is certainly not possible now and will certainly not be possible for some time to come.

9.31 p.m.

Mr. HOLDSWORTH: I should like to congratulate the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Banfield) on the very reasonable speech in which he introduced this Motion, and to add one word to the speech of the Noble Lord. He cannot dismiss this question by simply saying that the Movers of the Motion will undermine the dignity of labour if this particular kind of pension is provided.

Lord SCONE: That was only one very incidental remark. I think I have shown that my main case lay in the financial impossibility of providing the scheme, quite apart from the effect which the hon. Member has mentioned.

Mr. HOLDSWORTH: That was the main point of the Noble Lord, but I always think that it is unfortunate to introduce that kind of argument into a Debate of this description. The same point was made when the Liberal Government introduced old age pensions. That argument is not correct and never was. I cannot help thinking, though I say it with respect, that the hon. and learned Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Croom-Johnson) hardly did credit to the terms of the Motion, which make it quite clear that these are retiring pensions. Those are the words which are used on the Order Paper. So far as I understand the Motion—I am not saying for a moment whether I agree with it or not, but I want to do justice to it—there is no com-
pulsion: a man is not forced to retire at the age of 60. The hon. and learned Member spoke of a man being a nuisance to his wife, but that need not happen if the man does not choose to retire at the age of 60. So far as I see it, it is optional to the man whether he will take advantage of the pension or will choose to proceed with his work; if he does so, then he will receive no pension.
It is perfectly true to say that there are hundreds and thousands of people to-day drawing old age pensions who still remain in active industry, the reason being that it is impossible for a person to retire on the small sum that is granted under the present pensions system. It is also true to say, as the Mover of the Motion said, that if that be the case it does not help the problem of unemployment. I take it that this Motion is first of all an optional pension: if a man agrees to retire, he gets his pension; if he does not, he does not get it. The purpose of the pension is to take off the labour market the old men and to leave a greater opportunity to the younger men on the market. This question cannot be dismissed lightly, nor can I approve of it without knowing the cost. The fairest thing to do, I think, is to examine the question. It would be foolish of me to say that I could approve of this scheme unless I know without doubt what was the cost involved.
The question has arisen particularly, because we are living in what may be termed a second industrial revolution. The development of machinery is facing us with a new problem, the problem of the displacement of labour. I was very much struck one evening to hear the Minister of Agriculture tell us what a large number of men could be displaced in agriculture by one machine. Those of us who have given some thought to this problem feel that whatever we may do, and however much industry may recover in the normal way, there was a great deal of truth in the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer—one which I think was very much misrepresented—that for at least 10 years during this period of the second industrial revolution, the new machine age, we shall be left with almost a solid block of unemployed for whom we shall have to try to find relief. Are we to say to these men that they must remain content with un-
employment, or is it incumbent upon us to examine the possibilities of providing for them a fuller existence? Because I cannot see any point in developing the machine unless it gives the peoples of the world a fuller existence, and some added leisure at an age when a man is capable of enjoying leisure.
There is another problem which the Mover of the Motion mentioned. I think that on consideration the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) will be inclined to withdraw the words he used about the social services of this country. It may be that he thinks they are not quite sufficient, but at least let us be honest and acknowledge that they are the best in the world. These social services, however, have in themselves brought an added problem. If we examine the actuarial tables of any insurance company—I think they are actuarial tables—it will be found that the expectation of life is greater now than it ever has been in this country.

Mr. CROOM-JOHNSON: I think the hon. Member means mortality tables.

Mr. HOLDSWORTH: I am obliged for the correction. People are "living on," and that of itself brings another problem. The hon. and learned Member referred to the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs giving the lie to the statement that a man is old at 60, and I think that is true not only of the hon. Member but of people generally. To-day women of 50 have not the haggard appearance they used to have 20 years ago. Unquestionably the social services have given us a better population in every way, and certainly people are living longer. With the development of machinery and all the other conditions making for longer life and added energy I feel that it is remarkable that this country has been able to find employment for the number of people it has.

Mr. HANNON: Protection, my boy.

Mr. HOLDSWORTH: The psychology of having a stable Government has undoubtedly given it an impetus. The State has accepted the principle of providing unemployment pay, and widows' and old age pensions, and we on these benches are proud to claim that we were really responsible for what I may call the foundation of our social services, though not the whole of them. And we
have gone a step further than that. The public authorities and the Government have instituted superannuation schemes for public employés—civil servants, policemen, teachers, etc., and great business organizations—all credit to them for it—have voluntarily provided superannuation schemes for their employés. In the City of Bradford the Bradford Dyers' Association and other organisations have gone a very long way in providing superannuation schemes. But this one thing has always struck me about the superannuation of civil servants and municipal servants—that the idea seems quite upside down. It is those who have security of employment and who in the main enjoy better wages than others who have been given superannuation, and I do not think we can dismiss lightly the question of a national superannuation scheme. I am not saying that I am in favour of it but I would like to see an examination of the possibilities of a superannuation scheme covering everybody.
I do not possess the necessary information to enable me to estimate its cost. I was given some figures, and they are open to challenge. According to the figures I got out there are approximately 5,000,000 men and women in this country over the age of 60, and 2,750,000 of them are now drawing either contributory pensions or widows' pensions. If the remaining 2,200,000 were given 10s. a week the extra cost would be £57,000,000. To-night the figure of £1 a week has been mentioned. At that figure the cost would be more than double that sum, because we should have to double the figure in respect of the people already drawing the pension, and the minimum cost, so far as I can estimate it, and I am open to correction, would be at least £150,000,000 a year—that is for the whole of the people over the age of 60. I admit that if the same rules were in force under this scheme as are in force under the present pensions scheme the cost would not be as large, because we should have to rule out those people who do not contribute, such as shopkeepers and other small business people—that is, unless the scheme was going to be compulsory on everybody. As against that there would be a certain saving on unemployment pay and a certain saving on public assistance—a thing which has not been mentioned this evening—and—another thing which no one can estimate—there would be a
certain saving on health services, because of one particular thing.
If there is one thing that causes illness, and particularly nervous disorders, it is worry, and I am certain that if such a scheme as has been suggested were in operation there would be a tremendous lightening of the burden of worry on most people. I read with some interest the figures in the pamphlet issued by Mr. Bevin. They are not quite Mr. Bevin's figures, because I think it is a Mr. Clarke, a Cambridge lecturer, who has given the figures in the second part, but I cannot accept those figures. They must be pure guesswork, and I should like to see the figures checked. I am not saying for a moment that they are deliberately given as wrong, but I am very doubtful of them, because the cost of this scheme is given in the pamphlet as £37,000,000, and I think that there must be some mistake.
I am rather interested as to what this scheme will cost, but from a point of view rather different from that of the Gentlemen occupying the Opposition Benches. I am perfectly certain that if we could bring in a scheme of this kind it would finally kill Socialism.

Mr. BANFIELD: We will risk it.

Mr. HOLDSWORTH: I noticed that the Mover of the Motion said that this was the first time that the scheme has been debated. That is very strange. I remember studying very closely that wonderful pamphlet, "Labour and the Nation," and, if I remember rightly, it was there stated that pensions should be given at 60. The Mover said that this was the first time that the Motion for pensions at 60 had been discussed, and that was confirmed by the hon. and learned Member for Bridgwater.

Mr. BANFIELD: In this House.

Mr. HOLDSWORTH: Exactly. That is the point which I am making. If this is such a worthy scheme, I am wondering what the Labour Government was doing between 1929 and 1931. It was because the leaders at that time recognised that such a scheme would kill Socialism that it was never discussed. I had almost the same experience as the hon. and learned Member for Bridgwater with regard to a certain election which I fought. There was no mention of whiskey in that elec-
tion, but certain promises were given, and undoubtedly every constituency was flooded with leaflets promising this kind of thing.

Mr. DAGGAR: By the Liberal party.

Mr. HOLDSWORTH: It would be perfectly futile. I do not think that Members of my party would go into the Lobby and say that the Government should bring in a scheme without further examination. If a man can be assured of provision against sickness and against unemployment, provision for his wife and children and for reasonable comfort in old age, he will not care two hoots about public ownership. There are not many people who are Socialists because of a belief in public ownership. What the workman asks for is a fair crack of the whip. It is worthy of examination as to whether a scheme like this is workable or not, and whether the fact of it being unworkable is that the cost would be so great. We ought to thank the hon. Gentleman the Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Banfield) who introduced the Motion. The question should be treated seriously and due examination should be given to it. The House should be possessed of all the necessary particulars, and should then come to a balanced judgment upon the issue.

9.50 p.m.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I listened to the speech of the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Banfield) and I agree with everyone who has spoken since: It was one of the most simple and yet one of the most earnest and capable speeches to which I have ever listened. The hon. Gentleman made his speech with great capacity, but what were greater were his earnestness and sympathy. I say that quite sincerely to him. What we are debating is terribly important. I am not going into the ethical question of a non-contributory or a contributory scheme. This Motion does not ask me to bind myself on that issue. It declares for a pension at 60 in order that people will retire from industry. That is the simple and elementary claim of the Motion, and to that I subscribe whole-heartedly. I am not going into the question of cost, because it is for those who propound the Motion to make their case in that respect. If this nation wishes to see a pension inaugurated, it should show determination. If it would show the same deter-
mination to establish a pension to give human happiness to the old people that it showed in the Great War, I am certain that that would get a pension accomplished.
Those who have supported this Motion have a great responsibility. For good or for ill, great numbers of people will take this Debate as a message of joy and hope, and they will believe in it. While this Debate will not bring them their pension, it will bring them a stage nearer to it. I do not agree with the Noble Lord the Member for Perth (Lord Scone) about the Labour party being far from power. I think that the Labour party will get power at an early date. Whether that will be good or bad will be determined by future events. I say, as one likely to receive that power, that to-night hon. Members are promising these things; it means that those things have to be done. I sat in the House of Commons during the last Labour Government, and I am sceptical. I sat, watched and pleaded, but not for £1 per week. The hon. Member for Wednesbury is in some ways more extreme than I. I never issued the pamphlets about pensions at 60; I declined to do it. I said I would not issue them because I did not see a Government doing it. I would be happy to see it done at 65, and never mind 60.
I should have liked, when the Labour Government was in office, to see the old age pension increased not to £1 per week but to 15s. I should have liked to see widows get even a meagre 10s., but I have never seen that done. This message is one of great hope, and I plead with hon. Members of the official Opposition that when next they get their Government, as indeed I think they will, not to say what has been said before, because the responsibility will be upon them. One man who will occupy a prominent post in that Government is the late Minister of Transport, Mr. Herbert Morrison, who, speaking recently, said that this country had almost reached the limit of what it could do in the way of social alleviation under capitalism; and, knowing that he will occupy a place in that Government, I say that it will not be sufficient for hon. Members in these days to obey the Government and the Front Bench. To me one of the weak things in Parliamentary Government has not been procedure in the House of Commons, not
the scenes from time to time, but the fact that we see decent men and women in rags and misery, and that they say that they have trusted Parliament in the past and have little faith in it now. I say to the hon. Member in all sincerity that, in bringing forward this Motion to-night, he and his friends have a great responsibility—not the responsibility of being defeated or winning to-night, but a great responsibility because, when next they and their Government undertake the terrible task of abolishing poverty, they will be asked, almost in their earliest days, to implement this, and great courage will be needed on the part of the men who will have to do it. I hope that they will do it, and that they will remember, not their party and their movement, but what are to me greater even than my party and my movement — the great downtrodden masses—and will implement the promises that have been given to-night.

9.58 p.m.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Banfield) has the distinction, I understand, of raising for the first time in this House a subject which has occupied many minds for some time, but has never before come under the notice of Parliament. I, too, have dreamed the dream that old age might be free from apprehension and anxiety, and it is the recollection of that steady and continuous development which we have pursued in the social services in this country, unparalleled in any other, that fortifies my hope that that day will eventually dawn. Therefore, I have no complaint to make of the tone in which the hon. Member moved the Motion, nor of the idealism which inspired his speech. I think he spoke with a restraint and a lack of dogmatism that should commend the Motion to the careful attention of the House. But it is not the desirability of freeing old age from insecurity that we are discussing to-night; it is not on behalf of those who have passed the time for work that this Motion pleads; we are dealing with those who are actually employed, and we are invited to give an annuity to them in order that they may yield up their positions in work to those who are less fortunately placed. Therefore, we may regard this Motion
without sentiment as a contribution towards the unemployment problem—at least, so we are told in the Motion.
The hon. Gentleman realises that, in order to persuade persons now employed to retire from industry, he must offer them pensions which are sufficient in amount. He considers that 20s. for a single person, and 35s. for a married couple, would be a proper figure to secure his purpose. He will admit at once that his view as to the figure will not be shared by many of his hon. Friends, and certainly will not be shared by some people who are not connected with his party at all. I recall that Mr. Cramp, who was so well esteemed, speaking at the Trades Union Congress and expressing the view that it would be a mistake to adopt such a scheme in addition to all the other schemes of social insurance, made the statement that not less than 25s. for a single person and 50s. for a person with a dependant would suffice. However, I will accept the lower figure which the hon. Gentleman gave, only observing that, the less attractive you make the figure, the less likely are you to achieve your aim of drawing workers out of industry, and the more attractive you make your figure the less will you be able to resist appeals by an ever-increasing percentage of the population to enjoy the benefits which you have to offer. I gather that the hon. Gentleman appreciates that.
It was not his purpose, I take it, to establish a privileged class of persons who would enjoy a pension only by virtue of the fact that they were in work on an appointed day. If that were the scheme, it would create, of course, as much indignation as satisfaction. You would have to admit into your scheme those who are unemployed just as you would include in it those who are employed. The hon. Gentleman admitted further implications, and I take it from what he said that he would not exclude others who are not at present within the insurance scheme—hawkers, small shopkeepers, and, indeed, members of the middle classes who would be contributing towards these pensions, being themselves sometimes less fortunately off than those to whose benefit they were asked to subscribe. If I have correctly understood
the hon. Gentleman, equity would demand, in the circumstances which he contemplates, that the extension should be made so wide as to involve, in effect, universal pensions.
The hon. and learned Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Croom-Johnson), in his most interesting and closely analytical speech, justly observed that this matter had never come under critical review.
I take it that the House, like the hon. Member, would expect me to give them figures upon which they can base a judgment. I will make several assumptions. The first, because it is an assumption with which the hon. Member agrees, is that we are to give a universal pension at the age of 60 of £1 a week to a single person and 35s. a week to a married couple, payable even if the wife be under 60. The estimated gross annual cost of such a scheme, arrived at by averaging the cost over 40 years—because the cost in the first year is of no finality at all; it only contains a minimum number of persons—would be £372,000,000 a year, from which I must make certain deductions. I will deduct from this figure £93,000,000 on account of existing contributory pensions, old age pensions and pensions that widows would receive at the age of 60. That gives me a net figure of £279,000,000 a year, which would be the cost of a universal pension on the lines that I have defined to the House.

Mr. BATEY: Is that the calculation for everyone who is over 60 years of age now?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: That is the calculation. If the scheme were limited to persons gainfully employed, that is to say, persons working themselves as employers or as employed persons with incomes of not more than £1,000 a year, which I gather was the kind of figure that the hon. Member had in mind, it is estimated that the gross annual cost would be £289,000,000, less existing pensions, £82,000,000—net cost, £207,000,000. If the scheme were further limited to the existing insurable class, the beneficiaries and their wives would number 3,653,000, and the cost of pensioning them, including wives under 60 of men over that age, would be £222,000,000, less a deduction of £76,000,000, or £146,000,000 a year. That is the lowest average annual estimated figure that I can give the hon. Member.

Mr. PALING: Does that include wives under 60 whose husbands have attained that age?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Certainly, because that is the hon. Member's scheme. That is the lowest figure that I can give him on the assumption that it would secure the object of inducing these people to take a pension. But suppose it was not considered an adequate inducement, what then would probably be the result? I have had open to me the same advice and the same statistical tables, brought up to date, as were before the Government formed from the Opposition party when they were in office and when they examined this scheme, which we must assume they rejected. If the hon. Member's 20s. a week for a single person and 35s. for a married couple were adopted, I am informed that, out of 3,635,000 insured persons, 3,190,000 would take the pension. That is the estimate. Of these 3,190,000 persons 635,000 would actually be working. The others would not be workers at all. These 635,000 workers are computed to make vacancies for 400,000 people, because many of them are old and their work could be done by fewer young men. I think that is a fair calculation, to assume two vacancies filled for every three old persons leaving work. So the result of the hon. Member's scheme would be that you would create vacancies for 400,000 people.
The scheme is represented as being a contribution towards solving the unemployment problem. What would it cost? Allowing for the offset in respect of existing pensions, of unemployment benefit and transitional payments, and making a suitable adjustment for savings in Poor Law relief in respect of the State's share, the annual charge in respect of the new scheme might be put at £114,000,000. That means that the cost of finding work for one person for one year under this scheme would be £285 which, according to the figures of wages given by the hon. Member, is more than twice the amount of wages that the man displaced might be earning. I hope I have made myself clear. The cost of putting one man into work for one year under this scheme would be £285, and I am not surprised that the Opposition, when in office, came to the same conclusion that we are bound to come to, that this is not an economic Measure. You have to bear in mind the point which was recalled to me by the
hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. Holdsworth) in speaking of the mortality tables, that the expectation of working life at age 60 is only half the expectation of life. Consequently, you are going on paying for twice the period the sum of money which would atone for the loss of wages.
That is the cost. Would the expense of £285 per head achieve the purpose of the Motion? We are told in the Motion, inferentially, that the volume of employment would be increased, but there is no effect whatever upon the volume of employment. We are simply replacing one man by another. I fail to see how the Motion of the hon. Gentleman would succeed upon the claim that it would have any effect whatever upon the volume of employment.

Mr. McENTEE: What about the increase of purchasing power?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I will answer that point. The increase of purchasing power receives the same answer. You are transferring money from person A to person B. There is no appreciable increase in the volume of purchasing power. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) desires to make some interruption. I am trying to deal with the Motion perfectly candidly, as the hon. Gentleman will agree. If he has any reasonable objection to make to any statement which I make, I hope that he will make it.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: This is a very important point. When the hon. Gentleman says that there will be an increased cost to the State of £114,000,000, is not that an addition to the wages which will be paid to the persons who secure work, and does it not follow, whether we agree with the proposal or not, that, at any rate, there will be a greater purchasing power in the hands of the recipients in consequence?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The hon. Gentleman, if he were here, must have listened to the case presented by his hon. Friend. He proposes to finance this scheme as to a half to be paid by the workmen, a quarter by the employer, and a quarter by the State. Therefore, you are taking a sum of money from one worker and transferring it to another. There can be no vast increase of purchasing power. There is merely a transference of purchasing power.

Mr. McENTEE: The hon. Gentleman himself said just now that the cost to the State would be £114,000,000.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I cannot have made myself plain. I said the cost of the scheme. The cost of the scheme, I said, would be £114,000,000, and, if the cost is to be apportioned as the hon. Gentleman says, that would be one method of financing it. If it were to be a non-contributory scheme, of course, the State would pay the whole of it. I am taking the scheme of the hon. Gentleman, and I assume that he knows the scheme that he desires to advocate. Of course, there are a great number of alternative schemes. The cost of the scheme advocated by the hon. Gentleman per week would be 4s. 9d. contribution per head and not 1s. 6d., as he hoped. That might be distributed in any proportion you like among workers, employers and the State, but I assume that the hon. Gentleman would wish it to be distributed in the proportions he mentioned.
The relation between the numbers working and the numbers not working in the community would in no way be affected by this scheme, except, perhaps adversely in regard to those in employment, for if, as the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Bridgwater pointed out in his able speech, you put an additional burden upon industry, then you may actually decrease employment. If industry has to carry another £114,000,000 for this purpose, you may destroy or affect its competitive position. Therefore there would be no advantage, but a possible disadvantage to those actually employed. You might, as I say, contract the volume of employment. The hon. Gentleman who moved the Motion did not in the least wish to press it to any logical conclusion. He was anxious to weigh all the difficulties that surround the acceptance of a scheme of this kind. All that he asked for was an inquiry. Such an inquiry was made by the last Government, as I have already informed him. All the facts and figures are available, and I have given some of them to-night.
We are grateful to the hon. Member for having brought this question into the arena of discussion, even if, by doing so, he has shown it to be impracticable. The hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) pointed out the danger which we incur in discussing in the House of Commons
Motions of this kind. Unfortunately, you do raise hopes. It may be that a certain section of the population will think that the House was divided into two classes of persons, one which was willing to give a pension at once to everybody at the age of 60, quite regardless of what it might cost—it would be a matter of indifference to them—and one which was not willing to do that. That would be an unfair conclusion to make from this Debate, when so much sympathy has been expressed with the views of the hon. Member who moved the Motion. I hope that I have convinced him that the matter will have to be thought out far more carefully and perhaps upon entirely different lines.
We have built up a system of social insurance, an extremely intricate scheme and an extremely costly one. There is no reason whatever why it should not be improved in accordance with our resources and in accordance with our experience. A scheme would have a far better chance of being accepted if it could fit into what we already have in the way of social insurance, rather than that it should involve the scrapping, as this would do, of a great part of our social insurance system. Industry already carries burdens in respect of social services of £490,000,000. At this time, whatever the merits of this Motion may be—and I am sure that it has not the merits that are claimed for it—I do not think anyone would suggest that industry could add a further £100,000,000 of burden to those which it already carries. Therefore, I am compelled to ask the House to reject the Motion. The speeches made in favour of the Amendment contained, in embryo, most of the arguments that I have used. There are administrative difficulties, as have been shown. There are reasons which tend to demonstrate that, far from diminishing unemployment, this proposal might increase unemployment. It is because the Amendment takes that point of view, and its supporters have so well argued it in that sense, that I invite the House, if it has to vote at all, to vote for the Amendment and against the Motion.

10.24 p.m.

Mr. CHARLES EDWARDS: I speak so seldom in the House now that I need not apologise for intervening in the Debate. One might take it for granted after what has been said to-night that there is no
hope for the workers whatsoever, that the nightmare of old age must still remain with them and that nothing will be done. I do not believe that. We have had all sorts of figures quoted to-night. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury gave £114,000,000 as the total cost. We have been talking to-night about a contributory scheme. I confess that I prefer the other kind of scheme, because I think that national taxation is the fairest form of taxation and that everybody should pay according to ability. There has been talk about contributory pensions. If that was taken into account with the £114,000,000 it would make a big difference. It would mean that the total cost to the State would be from 4½ per cent. to 5 per cent. of the national expenditure of the country; and that is not a big thing to ask for the workers.
I listened to the speeches of the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment without being very much impressed. They told us what we had left out of the Motion and what we ought to have put in. They knew that we could not put in details in a Motion of this kind for discussion on a Wednesday evening. They said indeed, some rather queer things. Who said that a man is old at 60? I do not admit that I am an old man yet, and I am just about that age. What we do say is that there are so many unemployed in the country that a man of 60 ought not to be working while there are young men of 20 walking the streets. That is a different proposition. The hon. Member who seconded the Motion said that it would require a staff of inspectors to look after a man to see whether he got another job, on the assumption that a man will be able to leave his job, get his pension, and get another job the following day. Jobs are not to be got like that. There is no necessity to employ inspectors to see whether a man gets another job. It is really a little silly. Both hon. Members also talked about it being impossible to carry out a proposal of this sort. They are comparatively young men and the word "impossible" ought to have no meaning to them.

Mr. CROOM-JOHNSON: The hon. Member is misled by appearances once more.

Mr. EDWARDS: It shows how very far removed they are from the actualities of
unemployment. I maintain that the proposal is quite possible. It may be that old men are kept on in some cases; but they are not numerous. The trouble to-day is that they are thrown off and they know that if they get out of work at 60 years of age there is no prospect of their ever getting employment again. It is terrible to live amongst these people, as I do, and have to meet this sort of thing. The hon. Member also hoped that this policy would not be talked about at the next election. It will be, I can assure him. There is not a single workers' conference held in any part of the country by any organisation but what this policy finds a place on its agenda. This is a policy which will have to be undertaken. There is a necessity for such pensions as these, but we want an expression of opinion before we do anything else. The Lord Privy Seal the other day said that we must have paper agreements before we can take further action, and I thought he made a good point. It is the same here. We must have an expression of opinion on the necessity of these pensions before we go any further. If we had pensions at 60 upon which people could live in decency and comfort, we should at least put unemployment in the right place, and we shall have unemployment with us for many years.
Is there a single hon. Member who believes that in the next 10 or 20 years we shall be without unemployment? The Chancellor of the Exchequer spoke of 10 years, and there was a lot of criticism about it. If we are down to anything like normal in 10 years I shall be very much surprised. I think we shall have unemployment with us for a very long time, and very large numbers of unemployed. If that is so, is it not right to put that unemployment at the right end of the scale, that is at the end of the scale where the man who has already done a good day's work will give a chance to those who are coming behind and have never had the chance of a day's work at all? That is the sensible thing to do, and I believe that eventually it must be done.
Machinery has come in and has resulted in increased means of production. We have not finished with machinery yet. Science and invention are still going on and they are not going to stop. I am not sure that it would be right to stop
them even if we could. There is machinery now for almost everything. Take the case of agriculture. If a man has an acre of ground and wants it mown he gets a machine to do it. Then there is the great machine in America which cuts and threshes and puts the grain into bags. All these things are cutting out labour. I was reading with some interest this week a speech made by the President of the Amalgamated Engineering Union. He was puting forward a case for a 40-hours week. Unemployment is compelling us to look around and see what can be done and we turn to thoughts and ideas that otherwise we should not have. He put forward a case for a 40-hours week and was complimented on the case that he put up.
He said that in engineering and iron and steel founding unemployment had risen from 52,000 in July, 1929, to 129,000 in July, 1933. The employers state that electrical and motoring engineering is relatively prosperous. Yet there are 57,000 people unemployed in that branch of the engineering industry. He pointed out how output had increased. It had gone up by 24 per cent. between 1924 and 1929. The Leyland Motor Company, using some German steel, were now able to produce 80 chassis in a week instead of the 50 produced before. At Vickers' works at Barrow gun mountings were now produced in half the time required before the War. An official of the Austin Motor Company said that the number of employés per car had fallen from 55 in 1922 to 24 in 1923, to 20 in 1924, 17 in 1925, 12 in 1926 and 10 in 1927. That is a reduction in the number of men from 55 to 10 in six years.
We have not finished with that sort of development yet. At Crewe, where a locomotive used to take six weeks for repair, the work is now done in six days. A special engine bearing which used to take 115 minutes work, now takes five minutes. So one could go on. The same thing is to be found in all industries. We are going to have unemployment for a very long time because even if trade improves, as we hope it will, invention will go on along with that improvement and we shall be left in exactly the same position as we are in to-day. Then consider the amount of short time which is being worked. There will have to be a
tremendous improvement in trade to employ fully those who are now in work, without taking into account a single unemployed man. There is no hope of anything but unemployment for a long time and we must begin to regulate the available employment and keep it at the right end and not at the wrong end as it is to-day. The great inventor Mr. Edison has said:
With all our great inventions and our power of getting increased production for less expenditure of labour, we are still only in the infancy of invention. The process which has carried us so far will carry us much further, and the day is not far distant when most of the work of the world, which now demands prolonged and arduous labour, will be done efficiently with little more toil than is necessary to supervise a machine.
I am glad of inventions which lighten the hard drudgery of work and Mr. Edison looked forward to a time when men would have more ease and more leisure at their disposal, but he assumed that everybody would be kept at work although so much less work would be required. That, however, is not so to-day. Invention has left us with another problem by throwing men out of employment altogether. That is the problem which we have to face. That is why we are moving this Motion. Sir Josiah Stamp has said that in a short time we shall be able to do with one-fourth of the manual labour which is required to-day. So, evidently, yet more men are to be thrown out of work. The time is coming when we must consider who are to be unemployed. To-day we do not consider that at all. A man of 60 has worked for 46 years from his school-leaving age. Should we not, as a nation, be lucky if we were sure of providing 40 years' work for every man? I fear we are a long way from that position. I submit that 46 years work is enough for any man, especially in the heavy industries and in the kind of work which some of us have known. To-day we find fathers and even grandfathers at work while their sons and grandsons are walking the streets. There is no sense in that, yet it will continue until some such system as we propose, is brought into effect. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury asked what advantage there was in taking one man out of employment and putting in another.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I did not ask what advantage there was in it. I said
it would not have any effect on the volume of employment. It would merely substitute one man for another. I did not say whether it was a good thing or a bad thing.

Mr. EDWARDS: In any case, it would be a great advantage to set to work the young man who has more energy and staying power than the man who has done 46 years work can expect to have. Another advantage is that the man who has reached 60 and has done 46 years work is no danger to the future. What of the young man who has never done a day's work in his life and who has learned no craft? He has lost the discipline that work brings. To me, the future of a nation with so many people in it like that is not very bright and is not one that one likes to contemplate. The old men are not a danger, but the young men who have nothing to do are a danger to the future, and that is the great advantage to me of such a scheme as we have talked about to-night.
I do not know much about figures. It seems to me to be one way of getting round a business to put forward a lot of figures that nobody understands. We have had too many figures; they confuse the issue, And we do not know where we are. One hon. Member said there were no fewer than 1,750,000 people over 60 in work. That was one statement, and a reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. D. Grenfell) to-day put the number between 60 and 65 at 720,000. I suppose that would bring it up to 1,000,000, because there is quite a number over 65 in industry to-day. In Mr. Bevin's scheme that has been talked about to-night, he says from 750,000 to 1,000,000, so I think it is safe to say that there are about 1,000,000 persons in employment to-day over 60 years of age, and we have 1,000,000 or more young men walking the roads doing nothing.

Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: No.

Mr. EDWARDS: We had a reply the other day from the Minister of Mines to the effect that there were less than 10,000 on the colliery books just now over 65, but that in June, 1927, there were 80,000. That shows what a number have had to leave that employment. What a prospect for these people who have come out of the mines without any provision for them except perhaps 10s. a week. I
have a figure here, but I do not know whether it is right or not. One does not know what figures to use. I would like to have a committee set up by this House to go into this whole question. The Minister said that an inquiry had been held, but I do not know anything about that inquiry. I daresay some auditor or someone else has looked into the business, but I would like a Committee of this House to go into this question, to get together all the information it could, to, take evidence from those in a position to speak with authority on this subject, and to bring up a report to this House. I think that would be very useful, because we are not discussing this subject for the last time by any means. I think the Government or some other Government will have to pay attention to organising the unemployed, so that we can get them out at the right end of the scale.
I am using a figure of 312,000 people who are working and drawing pensions at the moment. That figure might be all wrong, but everyone has given different figures this evening, so that I too can give a different figure. Anyhow, I think that is all wrong. I believe that when a man has a pension it ought to create a vacancy every time. I knew two men living next door to each other. The one was unemployed, with a wife under 65, and he was getting 10s. a week pension, and the other man, with his wife over 65, was getting £1, and he was working at the same time. There is no sense in that sort of thing. I know they are entitled to it, but I believe that whenever a pension is paid it ought to create a vacancy for somebody else. The whole system of social insurance should be gone into, and revised and co-ordinated. I fail to see any difference whether a man is unemployed or ill or injured; he cannot earn wages. Yet we have a separate fund for all these contingencies and separate administration. There could be a great saving if there were a co-ordinating scheme.
We are told again that there are 30,000 children under 15 years of age working. Would it not be better to have people between 15 and 16 working than have the children at work and old men struggling to work in order to enable them to live long after they ought to be resting? We are putting forward a case for these pensions that ought to be more
seriously considered than it has been to-night. We are asked if men would withdraw from work at 60. It depends on the pension. I believe many would be glad to do so. The Mover of the Amendment talked about the people at Bridgwater and asked what the wives would think of a scheme like this. If he went to the women of Bridgwater and talked about such a scheme they would give it a good reception. I recommend him to go there and talk to them about it. The workers in any part of the country would give it a good reception. Many men would withdraw from work because they are getting very low wages. If a man has to wait until he is 70 years of age for his pension, he has to be very careful of the risks that the 10 years will bring. If it became the rule to have these pensions, people would order their lives accordingly and make preparations for the time when they were 60. It would remove a life-long anxiety which workers feel as to their old age.
What of the cost? That is the great thing. I do not think it would be so very great to-day. There are men with their wives and children drawing unemployment pay and that would amount to almost as much as a pension for a man and wife at 60. I do not think all the millions that have been talked about to-night would be required. A scheme was drawn up by Mr. Broad, who was a Liberal Member in this House at one time. It was an all-in scheme with a 30s. a week pension on the present contribution, which it would be possible to pay by co-ordinating the different schemes of insurance. We pay some very good pensions to-day. There are some people who receive very large pensions. They have received, too, very good salaries and could have made provision for themselves. No means test is applied to them and no questions are asked. No one has ever suggested that they are demoralised by it, but, if you give 35s. a week to a working man and his wife, they are demoralised. It apparently depends on the size of the pension. Take the case of policemen. I have been looking at a reply given on the 8th February, 1932. I think it is the last complete reply of this sort.
My hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton (Mr. R. Davies) put
a question a fortnight ago and was referred to that reply, so that it seems to be the official reply. It deals with the pensions of police. I was going to the railway station last Monday morning and I met some unemployed—or, rather, they came to meet me. They said, "Our policeman has been pensioned off at £3 a week, and has been given a job as a watchman and another £3 a week, and we are only getting our 15s. a week." I do not object to any pension, but I do object to giving it to somebody who is going to take somebody else's job. A pension ought to create a vacancy, and that is my quarrel with the police pensions. The reply stated that in England and Wales there were 38,224 police pensioners at a cost of 3x00A3;5,267,995; an average of £137 16s. a year, or £2 13s. a week. Last week I asked the same thing about the Metropolitan Police, and about how many had retired on the age limit. The reply was two; you may not believe it, but that was the reply. Their average age was 57½, and their pension was £220 19s. a year, or £5 11s. 8d. a week. Ten inspectors and superintendents were pensioned at an average age of 53.7 years, and the average per year was £388 1s. 6d. and per week £7 9s. So we demoralise them considerably.
Teachers, again, have a splendid job. I rather admire the teachers, for when a teacher gets to college and secures a position he has no other worries; he knows he is right for life. I wish everybody was in the same position. The teachers pensioned were 33,000 odd; the amount of the pensions was £4,203,200, an average of £127 4s. a year, or £2 9s. a week, for men and women. Then there are the civil servants. The Post Office had 26,657 pensioners at a cost of over £2,800,000; that is an average of £107 13s. a year, or £2 1s. a week. The average of the Inland Revenue is £287 6s. a year, or £5 1s. 6d. a week. The Customs and Excise had 2,373 pensioners at an average cost of £259 a year, or £4 19s. 7d. a week. We hear about 35s. as being the highest figure possible for the present pensions and the dreadful prospects to the country if the pension is any greater; hon. Members say that they do not know where the country would come to if we paid more. We are, however, paying some decent pensions at the moment.
That is not all. Lump sums and gratuities are also paid. The Estimates given in 1932 for these lump sum payments, gratuities and so forth for the Civil Service were £1,770,000; for the Post Office, £1,880,000. All these are in addition to the pensions which I have quoted. We therefore pay pensions to-day on a fairly good scale, but everything would be finished if we paid pensions to the manual workers of the country. The people who produce everything are the ones who must be left out every time, left to get along on their 10s. and their friends as best they can. I have some more figures about the War Office and the Admiralty. I will give you the three Services as they are to-day. Of the three Services together, the average was £1 13s. a week, and there were also, of course, dependants' allowances.
I think I have said a good bit to-night. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] Everybody seems to be in agreement with me. I had a lot of leeway to make up, and I had to do the best I could. What I have said I believe ought to have been said. We are talking about something which must eventually be brought about. To my mind it is the only way in which we can regulate employment. We have talked about optional and compulsory cessation of work at 60. I would like the pension to be such that we could make it compulsory. I would like to go even further; if unemployment were unusually heavy I would reduce the age to 59 or 58, so as to get the young ones into employment. If employment became better we could raise the age again. In that way we could make sure that the right people would always be working. I com-

mend this Motion to the House because, whatever comes of it to-night, I feel that we shall have to get back to this subject again and again. I believe the only sensible way of dealing with unemployment is to get the old ones out of industry and let the young ones work. No one can say a word against that, but instead of saying a word against it people bring forward a lot of figures that we cannot understand. I suppose that is the easiest way out. It is an important Motion, and one that ought to have serious consideration, and I hope the House will allow it to pass.

10.57 p.m.

Mrs. COPELAND: When the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. C. Edwards) stated that there are 30,000 children under 15 years of age in employment to-day, does he realise that in a great many crafts it is an absolute necessity that children should learn the trade very young, because there is a skill of hand and eye that you never get if you wait until you are 16 years of age before starting? I am speaking from experience, because I know that in the pottery industry, for instance, there are certain occupations in which, if you only start at 16 years of age, you can do nothing. You must have the wonderful youth and skill of the earlier age in order to get on. Therefore, I beg to say that I think it was perhaps not fair to quote the figure of 30,000.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 42; Noes, 126.

Division No. 118.]
AYES.
[10.59 p.m.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Mainwaring, William Henry


Banfield, John William
Groves, Thomas E.
Maxton, James


Batey, Joseph
Grundy, Thomas W.
Milner, Major James


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Paling, Wilfred


Buchanan, George
Hicks, Ernest George
Parkinson, John Allen


Cape, Thomas
Jenkins, Sir William
Price, Gabriel


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
John, William
Rathbone, Eleanor


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Daggar, George
Kirkwood, David
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Lawson, John James
Tinker, John Joseph


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Leonard, William
Wilmot, John


Debbie, William
Logan, David Gilbert



Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Lunn, William
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
McEntee, Valentine L.
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. G. Macdonald.


NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd.)
Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th, C.)


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Balniel, Lord
Bossom, A. C.


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey
Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Horsbrugh, Florence
Radford, E. A.


Boyd-Carpenter, Sir Archibald
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)


Bracken, Brendan
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Reid, William Allan (Derby)


Broadbent, Colonel John
Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)
Remer, John R.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)
Rickards, George William


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd, Hexham)
Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romf'd)
Robinson, John Roland


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.
Runge, Norah Cecil


Browne, Captain A. C.
Jesson, Major Thomas E.
Rutherford, John (Edmonton)


Chapman, Col. R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Law, Sir Alfred
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Law, Richard K, (Hull, S. W.)
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Clayton, Sir Christopher
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Savery, Samuel Servington


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Lindsay, Noel Ker
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Unv., Belfast)


Cook, Thomas A.
Loftus, Pierce C.
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.


Copeland, Ida
Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.
Lyons, Abraham Montagu
Soper, Richard


Cross, R. H.
MacAndrew, Lt.-Col. C. G. (Partick)
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Davies. Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Donner, P. W.
McEwen, Captain J. H. F.
Strauss, Edward A.


Duckworth, George A. V.
McKie, John Hamilton
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Duggan, Hubert John
McLean, Major Sir Alan
Sutcliffe, Harold


Eastwood, John Francis
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Tate, Mavis Constance


Elmley, Viscount
Macquisten, Frederick Alexander
Templeton, William P.


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Magnay, Thomas
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)


Essenhigh, Reginald Clare
Marsden, Commander Arthur
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst
Martin, Thomas B.
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Fremantle, Sir Francis
Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Goff, Sir Park
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir John S.


Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Moreing, Adrian C.
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Grimston, R. V.
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Wells, Sydney Richard


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Munro, Patrick
Whyte, Jardine Bell


Guy, J. C. Morrison
Nall, Sir Joseph
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Hanley, Dennis A.
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
O'Donovan, Dr. William James
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Harbord, Arthur
Peat, Charles U.
Wise, Alfred R.


Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Penny, Sir George
Womersley, Walter James


Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Percy, Lord Eustace



Hopkinson, Austin
Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilston)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Procter, Major Henry Adam
Mr. Croom-Johnson and Lord Scone.

Proposed words there added.

Main Question, as amended, put.

The House divided: Ayes, 110; Noes, 38.

Division No. 119.]
AYES.
[11.10 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Harbord, Arthur
Radford, E. A.


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Ramsay, T. B W. (Western Isles)


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd)
Hopkinson, Austin
Reid, William Allan (Derby)


Balniel, Lord
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Remer, John R.


Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey
Horsbrugh, Florence
Rickards, George William


Bossom, A. C.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Robinson, John Roland


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Runge, Norah Cecil


Boyd-Carpenter, Sir Archibald
Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)
Rutherford, John (Edmonton)


Bracken, Brendan
Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)


Broadbent, Colonel John
James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.
Savery, Samuel Servington


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Law, Sir Alfred
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Unv., Belfast)


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S. W.)
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Browne, Captain A. C.
Lindsay, Noel Ker
Soper, Richard


Chapman, Col. R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Loftus, Pierce C.
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Clayton, Sir Christopher
Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Lyons, Abraham Montagu
Strauss, Edward A.


Cook, Thomas A.
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Sutcliffe, Harold


Copeland, Ida
McEwen, Captain J. H. F.
Tate, Mavis Constance


Cross, R. H.
McKie, John Hamilton
Templeton, William P.


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
McLean, Major Sir Alan
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Duckworth, George A. V.
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)


Duggan, Hubert John
Macquisten, Frederick Alexander
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Eastwood, John Francis
Magnay, Thomas
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Elmley, Viscount
Marsden, Commander Arthur
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Martin, Thomas B.
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir John S.


Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Essenhigh, Reginald Clare
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Wells, Sydney Richard


Fremantle, Sir Francis
Moreing, Adrian C.
Whyte, Jardine Bell


Goff, Sir Park
Munro, Patrick
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Nall, Sir Joseph
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Wise, Alfred R.


Grimston, R. V.
O'Donovan, Dr. William James
Womersley, Walter James


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Peat, Charles U.



Guy, J. C. Morrison
Penny, Sir George
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hanley, Dennis A.
Percy, Lord-Eustace
Mr. Croom-Johnson and Lord Scone.


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilst'n)



NOES.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Mainwaring, William Henry


Attlee, Clement Richard
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Maxton, James


Banfield, John William
Grundy, Thomas W.
Milner, Major James


Batey, Joseph
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Paling, Wilfred


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Hicks, Ernest George
Parkinson, John Allen


Buchanan, George
Jenkins, Sir William
Price, Gabriel


Cape, Thomas
John, William
Rathbone, Eleanor


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Kirkwood, David
Tinker, John Joseph


Daggar, George
Lawson, John James
Wilmot, John


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Leonard, William



Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lunn, William
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Dobbie, William
McEntee, Valentine L.
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. G. Macdonald.


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

Resolved,
That this House is of opinion that it would be impossible to administer a scheme of retirement pensions at sixty years so as to make them conditional on actual and continued retirement, and that the heavy additional burden which such a scheme would impose upon the taxpayer and upon industry would check the present improvement and would diminish the amount of employment which industry is able to provide.

The Order of the Day was read, and postponed.

COAL INDUSTRY (PARSONAGE COLLIERY, LEIGH).

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Sir F. Thomson.]

11.17 p.m.

Mr. TINKER: I desire to raise a question relative to deep mine working. On 6th February I asked a question of the Secretary for Mines regarding Parsonage Colliery in Lancashire which had attained a depth of over 4,000 feet, and in which workmen were complaining of the excessive heat. The Secretary for Mines, in his reply stated that no complaints by workmen had been brought to his notice. With regard to the depth, the answer given by the Secretary for Mines on 14th November was that the deepest pit was 3,750 feet. On 6th February, in reply to this question, he said that the depth of the Parsonage Pit was 3,850 feet. It had increased in depth by 100 feet since the previous answer. The information I have is that this pit is more than 4,000 feet in depth. The shaft itself is 1,000 yards deep. Then there is a brow of 1,800 yards which dips one in five, and calculating on that basis, it puts the depth well over 4,000 feet. The coal face extends further. That is the vertical depth from the surface to the underground worker. The
previous Commission said that 4,000 feet was the limit of practical working, and that at that point it was almost impossible for men to work with any degree of comfort. Therefore, they gave the opinion that when that point was reached something ought to be done. The position is that at that depth, without any ventilation, the temperature is 115° Fahrenheit. With all the artificial conditions prevailing at the present time—and they are doing the best that can be done at that colliery, and one is not complaining about that matter—on 12th October last year, when the pit was not as deep as now, we got a measurement there of 103° Fahrenheit, and the top measurement was 103° Fahrenheit. Therefore, one can get an idea of the conditions under which the men are working.
Let me give some idea of their complaints. It was through my going round the constituency and getting various reports from the men who actually work there that I asked permission to go down the mine myself. I went there on the 12th October, and was able to see the conditions prevailing at the time. I will try to describe them. The men were working naked, covered with sweat and dirt, and it was impossible to distinguish who they were. One thought that it was almost impossible for them to continue their work. It was on the coal face where we made the measurement, and there there was a brisk current of air. One can imagine what the conditions would be when the men were doing packs, away from the direct current of air. I brought this question forward in order that we might see what could be clone. There must come a depth beyond which men must not be allowed to work, if the conditions are as unfavorable as I have pointed out.
I have had a letter to-day from a man who is working at the mine, in which
he says that the men have to retire from the coal face from time to time in order to rest themselves, and to get a little more air than they can obtain at the coal face. He also makes the complaint that lads are working there, and he wonders why conditions are allowed to prevail under which lads work in such circumstances. In this country we are behind other countries in dealing with this matter. Other countries have laid down conditions as to temperature. In Spain, if the temperature exceeds 91 degrees, the men are not allowed to work more than six hours. In Holland persons under 20 years of age have not to work in an atmosphere exceeding 86 degrees, and even then adults are not allowed to work more than six hours a day. In Germany they must not work more than six hours if the temperature exceeds 82 degrees, and in France the limit is six hours if the temperature exceeds 95 degrees.
In those countries they have done something to meet the conditions, but in this country we have never examined the question properly because we have not been going to the depths which exist at the present time. I want to give the Secretary for Mines a chance to reply, and I will say nothing further. My object in bringing the matter forward is that I want the Mines Department to pay close attention to what is taking place and to have reports made to the Department from time to time. If the hon. Member feels, as a humane man must, that the conditions are such that the men cannot work with comfort, then I want the Department to take some action, either by reducing the time during which the men are allowed to work and slave there, or, if that cannot be done, then to close the mine because it is unfit for the men to work under such slave conditions.

11.24 p.m.

The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Ernest Brown): The House might assume, from what has been said by the hon. Member, that nothing has been done in regard to this matter. There have not been many problems affecting mines in this country about which more, and more varied, work has been done, starting from the Royal Commission of 1907. I am very sorry that the matter has arisen in this way. The hon. Member did put two questions to
me on this matter, and on both occasions I said that I should be very glad to discuss the matter with him. I am very sorry that he did not take that opportunity, because there is a vast amount of information which throws an entirely different light on the problem as it has been presented to-night—in all sincerity, I admit—by the hon. Member. First of all, we get the statement about the degrees. All the scientific evidence points out that the temperature that matters is not the dry bulb temperature but the wet bulb temperature as related to that and the current of ventilation. This is a highly difficult and technical matter, and since it has been raised in a somewhat startling manner by the hon. Member I am entitled to all the time that is left. This is very important from at least two points of view. It is important from the point of view of the health and comfort of the workers, and also, as the hon. Member has said in his rather startling sentence, from the point of view of the continuance of the industry itself. There are many workers in this mine, and there are also men in other areas where the shallow seams have become extinct and where it has become necessary to go deeper for coal. The Royal Commission in 1907 considered this matter and in their report they made it clear that—
On the whole we do not think that any good object will be served by prescribing a limit of wet bulb temperature for carrying on work in mines.
That is not the temperature of 103 to which the hon. Member refers. The wet bulb temperature at the moment to which he refers was 82 degrees, not 103 degrees. After that report was issued, a great deal of special study was undertaken by that great scientist, who has probably done more for the mines and miners of this country than any other person, Dr. J. S. Haldane. As a result of very close study and also the work carried on by the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research and other bodies, a special committee was set up to deal with this question. As I pointed out in my first answer, they have issued no less than 17 different reports, and I would beg the hon. Member to read some of them. Take Number Six by Professor K. Neville Moss, dealing with the effect of high air temperature on the miner. They made an exhaustive examination of the problem.
If the hon. Member would read this report, and the other 16 reports, he would see that so far from there having been any slackness in the matter, there has been the most intense and scientific research. Let me say this, in fairness to the managers of this particular mine, that they have done all they can to make the conditions as favourable as possible.

Mr. TINKER: I said that.

Mr. BROWN: I say it also. These reports have been issued by Dr. Haldane and his assistants. I was hoping the hon. Member would come to me and ask me to discuss the matter with him, and in preparation for that I wrote to Dr. Haldane asking him to give me some notes about the subject. In his letter he says that the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) relates quite correctly that the temperature at which he found men working in the colliery was about 103 degrees. He says:
This is much hotter than the shade temperature ever reached on the surface in England, but not so high as is often the case in warm climates.

Mr. DAVID DAVIES: What about the pressure?

Mr. BROWN: I hope the hon. Member will allow me to give him, not my own information, but the information of a man who is incomparably the ablest and most
distinguished judge of this matter in England, who has given months and years of his life to a study of the matter. Dr. Haldane goes on to say:
In the Report of the Royal Commission on Health and Safety in Mines, 1909, the question is carefully discussed as to whether it is desirable to place (as was and still is the case in certain continental countries) some limitation on the temperature permitted in coal mines. It was pointed out that it is not the air temperature, but the temperature shown by a wet bulb thermometer that is important, other things being equal, to the men working in a coal mine, also that European miners, at any rate, always stop work before their temperatures rise to any injurious extent.
He also points out that:
On the whole we do not think that any good object would be served by prescribing a limit of wet bulb temperature for the carrying on of work in the mines.
With regard to the hon. Member's statement about the 4,000 feet, the point there is misunderstood. The committee which dealt with this problem was a committee which dealt with the question of coal reserves in this country and working facilities. They did not draw a definite limit of 4,000 feet, but in their report say that they took the previously fixed level of 4,000 feet, which was in the report of 1871, as a kind of datum level.

It being Half-past Eleven of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.